Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disallowance of liquidator fees

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2010

RE MIKURA LTD

Citation

RE MIKURA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW781/2004

Mr Nedderman’s unexplained departure from Hong Kong and failure to provide arrangements for the continuation of liquidations constituted sufficient 'cause shown' under s.196(1) of the Companies Ordinance to remove him (and, where appropriate, his co‑liquidators), to disallow his fees for failing properly to carry out his office, and to appoint capable replacements so as to protect creditors' interests; ancillary orders for delivery of books and filing of disbursement schedules and costs against him were justified.
27 Jul 2010

RE ETC ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

RE ETC ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW433/2005

Cause was shown because Mr Nedderman effectively abandoned his office by leaving Hong Kong without continuity arrangements, prejudicing creditor interests; therefore the court removed Mr Nedderman and his co-liquidator, disallowed his fees for failure properly to carry out his office, ordered delivery of books and records, permitted filing of disbursements within set times and appointed BDO nominees as replacement provisional liquidators, and awarded costs of HK$3,085 against Mr Nedderman.
27 Jul 2010

RE LUCKY AWARD LTD

Citation

RE LUCKY AWARD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW727/2004

Given credible evidence that Mr Nedderman had left Hong Kong and ceased proper administration of the liquidations, the court concluded there was good cause under s.196(1) to remove him and his co-liquidators, to disallow his fees because of failure to carry out office and prejudice to creditors, to appoint qualified replacements (BDO Limited officers), to order delivery of books and schedule filing of disbursements, and to order costs of $3,085 payable by Mr Nedderman.
27 Jul 2010

RE BEST CYCLE LTD

Citation

RE BEST CYCLE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW361/2005

The court found that Mr Nedderman’s apparent permanent departure from Hong Kong and his failure to make arrangements to enable the liquidation functions to continue constituted sufficient 'cause shown' under s.196(1) to remove him; his fees were disallowed because his failure to carry out his office properly prejudiced creditors; BDO appointees were ordered in his place and orders made for delivery of books, filing of disbursements schedule and payment of Official Receiver costs of $3,085 per application by Mr Nedderman.
27 Jul 2010

RE M & E ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

RE M & E ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW804/2005

Mr Nedderman's apparent abandonment of Hong Kong and failure to put in place arrangements for continuity amounted to sufficient cause under s.196(1) for removal; in the circumstances removal and replacement with BDO nominees was necessary to protect the interests of creditors, his fees were disallowed for failure properly to perform his office, orders for delivery of books and for filing disbursements were appropriate, and costs were awarded against him.
27 Jul 2010

RE FAITH DEE LTD

Citation

RE FAITH DEE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW237/2005

The court found that Mr Nedderman's disappearance from Hong Kong and failure to make arrangements for his firm's continued operation constituted sufficient cause under s.196(1) to remove him (and where appropriate his co-liquidators) as provisional liquidator / liquidator; accordingly the applications were granted, his fees were disallowed for failure properly to carry out office and protect creditors, delivery of books and filing of disbursements were ordered and replacement provisional liquidators from BDO Limited were appointed, with costs ordered against him.
27 Jul 2010

RE THE COUPLE DESIGN & PRODUCTION CO LTD

Citation

RE THE COUPLE DESIGN & PRODUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW686/2005

Given credible evidence that Mr Nedderman has effectively left Hong Kong, failed to enable his firm to operate and caused prejudice to creditors by failing to carry out his office, the court exercised its wide statutory discretion under s.196(1) to remove Mr Nedderman (and his co-liquidators as applicable) in all 61 matters, disallowed his fees, ordered delivery of books and documents, permitted filing of a schedule of disbursements within specified time limits, appointed Mr Kong Chi-hau Johnson and Mr Lo Siu-kei of BDO Limited as joint and several provisional liquidators/liquidators, and ord…
27 Jul 2010

RE VICTORIA GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO LTD

Citation

RE VICTORIA GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW758/2005

Given credible evidence that Mr Nedderman has departed Hong Kong and failed to make arrangements to continue the operation of his office thereby prejudicing creditors, the court exercised its wide discretion under s.196(1) to remove him and his co-liquidators, to disallow his fees for failure to carry out the office properly, to appoint competent replacement provisional liquidators/liquidators and to order delivery up of books and specified procedures for disbursements and costs.
27 Jul 2010

RE HONG KEE CO LTD

Citation

RE HONG KEE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW529/2005

The court held that Mr Nedderman’s disappearance from Hong Kong and failure to make arrangements for his practice to continue constituted "cause shown" under s.196(1); accordingly he and his co-liquidators were removed, his fees were disallowed because of failure to carry out the office properly causing prejudice to creditors, replacement provisional liquidators/liquidators (BDO nominees) were appointed, orders made for delivery up of books and for filing of disbursements, and costs of $3,085 were awarded against Mr Nedderman.
27 Jul 2010

RE XINDAS ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

RE XINDAS ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1190/2004

Given Mr Nedderman's apparent departure from Hong Kong and failure to make arrangements to enable his firm to continue to operate and for co-liquidators to carry out the office, the Official Receiver proved sufficient cause under s.196(1) for removal. Removal and replacement with capable provisional liquidators is necessary to protect the interests of creditors and the liquidation; accordingly the court removed Mr Nedderman and his co-liquidators, disallowed his fees, ordered delivery of books and records, permitted filing of a schedule of disbursements within the stated time limits, appointe…