Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time to lay accounts

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2016

LAU SHU YING CONNIE v. COLLECTORS CAR CLUB OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

LAU SHU YING CONNIE v. COLLECTORS CAR CLUB OF HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3461/2015

The court granted the application because the evidence satisfied the court and the transitional legal issues had been resolved by Re Hong Kong Society of Congenital & Structural Heart Disease Ltd (HCMP 1541/2016), permitting the meeting of 10 August 2015 to be deemed the AGM for 2014 and allowing the extension of time to lay the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2013 to that date, with the nine‑month period under s122(1A) of the former Ordinance extended accordingly.
8 Jan 2015

RE MEIYA POWER (MAOPOHE) LTD

Citation

RE MEIYA POWER (MAOPOHE) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2783/2014

The court granted extensions for the remaining originating summonses because the statutory criteria were met and held that attempting to present overdue accounts at a later meeting does not change the original date of breach nor create a new risk of prosecution; accordingly NGLE did not require an order for the periods 24 March 2009 to 31 December 2011, and applications relating to breaches over three years old could be withdrawn where there was no prosecution risk.
8 Jan 2015

RE MEIYA TONGZHOU COGEN POWER LTD

Citation

RE MEIYA TONGZHOU COGEN POWER LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2779/2014

Where the statutory criteria for extension under s122 are satisfied the court will grant relief; attempts to present accounts after the statutory deadline do not re‑set or extend the date of default so as to create new prosecution exposure, and therefore orders are unnecessary for breaches that are already beyond the prosecutable period.
15 Aug 2014

CHAN KWAN v. EVERBEST WATER TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

CHAN KWAN v. EVERBEST WATER TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP692/2014

Application dismissed: for the first five years the matters were outside the three-year prosecution limitation and posed no risk of prosecution; for 2012 the court found the default was not inadvertent but stemmed from indifference to statutory compliance by directors, so extension of time was refused.
13 Aug 2014

ENZO BARAZETTI v. ATMI AUSTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD

Citation

ENZO BARAZETTI v. ATMI AUSTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1211/2014

Dismissal of the applications was required because the alleged breaches were more than three years old so there was no risk of prosecution under s351A, and because the Companies Court is not the proper forum to decide matters relevant to the Stock Exchange's assessment of a listing application; granting relief would be an improper use of judicial resources.
13 Aug 2014

CHENG LAP YIN v. GOODEED LIMITED

Citation

CHENG LAP YIN v. GOODEED LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP724/2014

The court refused the applications: extensions of time will not be granted where defaults are more than three years old and no risk of prosecution exists; similarly, a technical late filing where accounts were subsequently laid does not justify exercising the court’s discretion to extend time.
13 Aug 2014

CHENG LAP YIN v. SUPERBO TRADING CO. LTD

Citation

CHENG LAP YIN v. SUPERBO TRADING CO. LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP722/2014

Where defaults in laying accounts occurred more than three years before the application and there is no real risk of prosecution, the court will not properly exercise its discretion to extend time; similarly, where the breach is purely technical and poses no prosecution risk, the court will refuse to extend time under the Companies Ordinance.
4 Apr 2014

HUI CHI KEUNG v. TELENT (HONG KONG) HOLDING LTD

Citation

HUI CHI KEUNG v. TELENT (HONG KONG) HOLDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3062/2013

The originating summons was dismissed because the court found the breach of section 122 was not inadvertent: the director ignored the company secretary's advice about laying audited accounts, so the first and decisive factor failed despite the court being satisfied on lack of prejudice and likely future compliance.
2 Apr 2014

CHAN TAT WAH AND ANOTHER v. KARLSON C & C LTD

Citation

CHAN TAT WAH AND ANOTHER v. KARLSON C & C LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3398/2013

The court granted extension orders under s122 for the companies whose breaches were inadvertent, caused no prejudice and were within a period where prosecution remained possible (Joy Excel and Well Creation), but dismissed originating summonses for companies whose breaches occurred more than three years earlier and were therefore time‑barred from prosecution (Karlson and Wealth Trinity); applications made solely to satisfy Stock Exchange listing requirements where no prosecution risk exists are unnecessary and should be refused to protect court resources.
2 Apr 2014

FOK CHUN KIT v. WELL CREATION HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

FOK CHUN KIT v. WELL CREATION HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3401/2013

The court granted extensions under s122 for Joy Excel and Well Creation because the audited accounts existed, the breaches were inadvertent, caused no prejudice and were unlikely to be repeated; the originating summonses for Karlson and Wealth Trinity were dismissed because the breaches occurred more than three years earlier, were time-barred for prosecution under s351 and the applications were unnecessary when pursued solely to satisfy stock exchange listing requirements.