Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Annual general meeting

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

VASILY TRUBNIKOV v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4535
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP763/2024

The court concluded the 3rd Defendant had ceased to hold office for the period 1 January 2024 to 28 November 2024 by operation of Article 22(4)(a) and that removal of Form NAR1 from the Companies Register was necessary because its continued presence would cause material damage; accordingly rectification was justified and the 3rd Defendant was ordered to pay costs to the Plaintiff and the Registrar.
18 May 2021

RE KIDSLOOP LTD (“the Company”)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP338/2021

The court granted the extension because the Company applied before the statutory deadline, demonstrated that the delays were inadvertent and caused by legitimate auditing and valuation complexities and COVID‑19 constraints, shareholders had been kept informed and suffered no prejudice, and the company was likely to comply with its obligations in future.
30 Apr 2021

WONG MICHELLE YATYEE v. GOLDBOND GROUP HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1129
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2259/2020

The court exercised its statutory discretion under s431 to grant a retrospective extension for laying the audited financial statements to 28 December 2020 because the delay was caused by forensic and further investigations, the default was inadvertent, shareholders had been kept informed and no prejudice was shown; the court refused relief under s610(5) because it has no jurisdiction to grant retrospective extensions under that subsection and refused to make an order under s610(7) because the AGM had already been held and a s610(7) order would not remove prosecution risk or serve any useful p…
4 Mar 2020

LAM CHUN FUNG v. WONG WAI TUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 336
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2139/2018

The court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time on the applicant's grounds because the reasons were unconnected to the statutory purpose of an annual general meeting and would amount to improperly assisting the applicant to retain board control; no relevant prejudice or statutory non-compliance justified a wider extension. A limited extension of 35 days was granted to allow the company to convene an AGM if it wished.
28 Oct 2019

HUANG FU HSIUNG AND ANOTHER v. TECHLUXE INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3014
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1685/2019

Because the failure to hold AGMs was inadvertent, audited financial statements existed and shareholders had access to necessary information, and because the matters of qualification could be placed before shareholders, the court exercised its power under the Companies Ordinance to order a general meeting within 28 days to be treated as the AGMs for 2015-2017 and substituted the statutory laying requirements accordingly; no order as to costs was made.
10 Jul 2019

E LINK STATION HOLDING LTD v. E LINK STATION LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1713
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP23/2019

Extensions were refused because the breaches occurred over three years earlier so there was no risk of prosecution and no facts were proved to justify departing from the established approach in Manfield Coatings; contractual obligations in sale and purchase agreements executed long after the breaches did not amount to special circumstances warranting extension.
10 Jul 2019

LHT EXPRESS (HK) COMPANY HOLDING LTD v. LHT EXPRESS (HK) CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1713
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP22/2019

Applications dismissed because the breaches occurred more than three years earlier with no risk of prosecution and no facts were proved that would justify departing from the established principle in Re Manfield Coatings that extensions are not granted in such circumstances; commercial contract obligations alone did not provide a basis to exercise the court's discretion to extend time.
18 Oct 2018

MODERN GALA (MODELS) LTD v. TSE FUNG CHIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2352
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1547/2018

The Company did not have locus standi under section 610(5); although the court has jurisdiction under section 610(7) to deal with the circumstances, any application under that provision must be brought by a member rather than the Company, and the Company’s originating summons therefore could not succeed on that basis.
16 Aug 2018

TSE FUNG CHIU v. KWOK CHEUNG HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3419/2016

Costs of both parties were ordered to be paid out of the assets of the company because the delays and issues arose from the company's affairs and conduct, making it equitable that the company bear the costs of the originating summonses and the hearing.
16 Aug 2018

TSE FUNG CHIU v. KWOK CHEUNG HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2066/2016

Because the failure and delay in convening the AGM and producing audited accounts arose from the conduct and records of the company rather than solely from one party, it is equitable to order that the company (2nd respondent) pay the costs of both the applicant and the 1st respondent, including a certificate for counsel.