Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of life insurance policies

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2011

RE DINWELL INDUSTRIAL (H.K.) LTD

Citation

RE DINWELL INDUSTRIAL (H.K.) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2247/2010

Where an applicant for an extension under s86 files evidence explaining the circumstances of the failure to register and states that it has no reason to believe the assignor company is likely to be wound up, the court need not require a separate affidavit from an officer of the assignor company on solvency in every case; consequently the extension of time should be granted on the evidence filed.
16 Feb 2011

RE K.C.K. GARMENT FACTORY LTD

Citation

RE K.C.K. GARMENT FACTORY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2250/2010

The court held that evidence from the assignor company about solvency and winding-up prospects is not mandatory in every s86 extension application; it is sufficient for the applicant to file evidence explaining the delay and stating no reason to believe the assignor will be wound up, and on that basis granted the 28-day extension to register the assignments.
16 Feb 2011

RE LUCKSWELL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

RE LUCKSWELL INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2242/2010

An extension under s86 was granted because the applicant provided an adequate explanation for the registration delay and filed evidence stating no reason to believe the assignors would be liquidated; the court held assignor company evidence on solvency is not universally required and is unnecessary where the applicant's evidence suffices.
16 Feb 2011

RE GOODEARTH FASHION LTD

Citation

RE GOODEARTH FASHION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2245/2010

It is not necessary in every case for an assignor company to file affidavit evidence as to solvency and absence of winding-up; an applicant must file evidence explaining the circumstances of the failure to register and state there is no reason to believe the assignor faces liquidation. On that basis an extension of 28 days under section 86 was granted.
16 Feb 2011

RE KOSOKU OFFICE SUPPLIES LTD

Citation

RE KOSOKU OFFICE SUPPLIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2239/2010

Where an applicant explains the circumstances of the failure to register a charge and files evidence stating it has no reason to believe the assignor will be put into liquidation, it is unnecessary in every case to require a separate affidavit from an officer of the assignor addressing solvency; accordingly the court granted the 28 day extension to register the assignments.
16 Feb 2011

RE THOMAS LO CONTRACTING LTD

Citation

RE THOMAS LO CONTRACTING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2256/2010

The court held that requiring evidence from each assignor company on solvency and winding up prospects is not necessary in every case; sufficient evidence is an explanation of the circumstances of the failure to register and a statement that there is no reason to believe the assignor faces liquidation, and on that basis the 28 day extension was granted.
16 Feb 2011

RE CHEUNG KEE SEA PRODUCTS LTD

Citation

RE CHEUNG KEE SEA PRODUCTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2255/2010

The court held that the mandatory practice of requiring an officer of the assignor company to depose to solvency and absence of winding up is unnecessary; evidence from the applicant explaining the failure to register and stating it has no reason to believe the assignor will be wound up suffices, and accordingly granted the requested 28 day extension to register the assignments.
16 Feb 2011

RE JASUKA INDUSTRIES (HKSAR) LTD

Citation

RE JASUKA INDUSTRIES (HKSAR) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2259/2010

It is not necessary in every case for the assignor company to file evidence addressing solvency and prospects of winding-up; instead the applicant must file evidence explaining the circumstances of the failure to register the charge and stating that it has no reason to believe the assignor is likely to be put into liquidation. Applying that principle, the court granted the 28 day extension sought.
16 Feb 2011

RE BAGUIO CLEANING SERVICES CO LTD

Citation

RE BAGUIO CLEANING SERVICES CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2254/2010

It is not necessary in every case for an assignor company to file evidence addressing solvency and prospects of winding up; the court requires evidence explaining why the charge was not registered and a statement that there is no reason to believe the assignor is likely to be wound up; on that basis the court will grant an extension under s86.