GENG HUA ZHONG AND ANOTHER v. LI SHU HON AND ANOTHER

GENG HUA ZHONG AND ANOTHER v. LI SHU HON AND ANOTHER

The strike-out application was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that the winding-up relief would fail: there were particular reasons to retain winding-up as an alternative, namely real doubts about the 1st respondent's ability to finance a buyout and the need to investigate the Group accounts before...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1374
Parties
1st Petitioner: Geng Hua Zhong; 2nd Petitioner: Li Jin Hu; 1st Respondent: Li Shu Hon; 2nd Respondent: T-Hero Industrial Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2019
Case Number
HCCW403/2017
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Summons to Strike Out Winding Up Relief (application); Decision on Summons
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed; winding-up relief retained as alternative
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Just and Equitable Winding Up, Unfair Prejudice (section 724), Buyout Relief, Strike Out Procedure
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Equity Winding Up Just and Equitable Winding Up Unfair Prejudice (section 724) Buyout Relief Strike Out Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geng Hua Zhong

1st Petitioner

Li Jin Hu

2nd Petitioner

Li Shu Hon

1st Respondent

T-Hero Industrial Company Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Proceedings / Summons to Strike Out Winding Up Relief (application); Decision on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is plain and obvious that the winding-up relief in the petition must be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the petitioners are pursuing winding-up relief unreasonably when buyout relief is available
  3. 3 Whether the 1st respondent has the financial ability to effect a buyout

Ratio Decidendi

The strike-out application was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that the winding-up relief would fail: there were particular reasons to retain winding-up as an alternative, namely real doubts about the 1st respondent's ability to finance a buyout and the need to investigate the Group accounts before ruling out winding-up.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed; winding-up relief retained as alternative

Orders

  • Summons dismissed; strike-out application refused
  • Order nisi of costs in favour of the petitioners to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for two counsel