19 Dec 2011
The court made a winding-up order because the company was unable to pay the admitted judgment debt and had failed, despite time since the statutory demand, to file substantive evidence or a satisfactory proposal to justify an adjournment to avoid winding-up.
2 Nov 2011
The Court found the Company unable to pay its debts and held that alleged unfairness or pending Mainland litigation, unsupported by admissible particulars or expert evidence about foreign proceedings or asset recoverability, do not constitute legal grounds to refuse a winding-up order; accordingly a winding-up order was made.
4 Aug 2011
The petition succeeds because the debt of HK$479,639 was undisputed and not repaid after formal demand; the asserted ability to repay via sale of the property was unsubstantiated because the property is subject to an all‑monies mortgage with no reliable evidence of the outstanding sum, the bank refused a further loan, and there was no evidence of the Company's other liabilities; accordingly the Company is insolvent and a winding‑up order is appropriate, with costs as ordered.
27 Jul 2009
The court concluded the petitioners proved each company was unable to pay its debts as they fell due and that presentation of petitions and related defaults accelerated indebtedness; accordingly winding-up orders were made for each company and costs were to be paid out of the assets of the company concerned.
27 Jul 2009
The court made winding-up orders because the petitioners proved the companies were unable to pay their debts as they fell due — supported by unaudited balance sheets, demands and admissions; presentation of petitions triggered contractual defaults accelerating liabilities, and no bona fide dispute was shown — therefore winding-up was appropriate and costs were to be borne from company assets.
15 Dec 2008
The petitioner proved the debt and evidence showed multiple claims against the company; the company failed to file evidence or appear; on that basis the court was satisfied the company was unable to pay its debts and a winding up order was appropriate.
13 Aug 2007
The court ordered the company to be wound up because the Labour Tribunal award and other unpaid employee debts, combined with a served demand and the dismissal of the company's appeal, demonstrated inability to pay debts and justified a winding-up order.
2 Aug 2006
The petitioning debt was found to be indubitably due on the uncontested documentary record (invoices acknowledged, auditors’ enquiry and confirmation, dishonoured cheques and promissory notes, and inconsistent defences); the Company failed to discharge the threshold onus of a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds (economic duress or misrepresentation); therefore, under s327(4)(a) the petitioner is entitled to a winding‑up order for inability to pay.
9 Jan 2006
Because the petitioning debt was proven and undisputed and the Company failed to appear or advance a meritorious defence or stay, the court was entitled to make a winding-up order and to direct that the Government's costs and the provisional liquidators' costs be paid out of the Company's assets.
12 Dec 2005
The court concluded there was no certain prospect of the Company receiving the anticipated commission and the petitioner would not agree to an adjournment; accordingly the Company was unable to pay its debts and should be wound up, with costs paid from the Company's assets.