Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Official receiver powers

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2022

RE EASY CHAMP CORPORATION LTD (in liquidation) (the “Company”)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 769
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW38/2020

The summons was dismissed: a provisional liquidator appointed by the Official Receiver under s.194(1A) is not a person "properly employed by the Official Receiver" for the purposes of rule 179(1) and therefore their remuneration is not payable at the 1st Rank; instead such provisional liquidators fall within the definition of "liquidator" and their remuneration is covered by the 8th Rank (remuneration of liquidators other than the OR); rule 153 does not determine priority of payments and the second question was inapplicable to this company's liquidation because the provisional liquidators and…
27 Jul 2010

RE NEW LINKAGE LTD

Citation

RE NEW LINKAGE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW915/2004

The court removed Mr Nedderman and his co-liquidator(s) because his apparent abandonment and departure from Hong Kong, and his failure to ensure continuity of administration, constituted sufficient cause under s.196(1) to protect creditors' interests; his fees were disallowed due to failure properly to carry out the office; replacement joint and several provisional liquidators from BDO Limited were appointed and orders made for delivery of books and filing of disbursements and payment of costs.
27 Jul 2010

RE SAGGIO (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

RE SAGGIO (HONG KONG) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1096/2004

Given evidence that Mr Nedderman has effectively departed Hong Kong and failed to make arrangements to allow his firm or co‑liquidators to perform their duties, the court found good cause under s.196(1) to remove him and his co‑liquidators, disallow his fees on grounds of failure to carry out office and prejudice to creditors, appoint Mr Kong and Mr Lo of BDO Limited as joint and several provisional liquidators/liquidators for the companies, order delivery of books and permit filing of disbursements within prescribed time limits, and order Mr Nedderman to pay the Official Receiver's costs of…
27 Jul 2010

RE MILLION FORTUNE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

RE MILLION FORTUNE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW479/2005

Mr Nedderman's disappearance from Hong Kong and the cessation of his firm's operation constituted 'cause shown' under s.196(1) because it prevented proper administration, prejudiced creditors, and therefore warranted removal of Mr Nedderman and his co-liquidator, disallowance of his fees, appointment of competent replacements, orders for delivery of books and a timetable for filing disbursements, and an award of costs against him.
27 Jul 2010

RE CHOR LAU HEUNG RESTAURANT CO LTD

Citation

RE CHOR LAU HEUNG RESTAURANT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW869/2004

The court removed Mr Anthony Nedderman (and where applicable his co-liquidator) because his disappearance from Hong Kong and failure to make arrangements for continuity constituted 'cause shown' under s.196(1) permitting removal; his fees were disallowed because his failure to carry out his office properly prejudiced creditors; replacement provisional liquidators/liquidators (BDO officers) were appointed and ancillary orders made for delivery of books and filing of disbursements; costs were ordered against Nedderman.
19 Aug 2009

RE SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD

Citation

RE SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW755/2005

Section 196(1A) permits the Official Receiver to fix the basis of remuneration for provisional liquidators appointed under section 194(1A) but does not exclude the court's jurisdiction to assess the quantum; remuneration of such provisional liquidators is to be assessed by the court pursuant to section 196(2) having regard to the basis fixed by the Official Receiver.
14 Jan 2005

RE VINCENT KAY LO IP

Citation

RE VINCENT KAY LO IP
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1209/2000

On the balance of probabilities the Official Receiver proved the bankrupt obstructed and failed to cooperate in administration by impeding realization of Canadian properties, withholding and providing incomplete Gaylaw records and fabricating documents, impeding realization of Wei Wei shares and failing to make contributions; these findings satisfy s.30A(4)(b),(c) and (d) and justify suspending automatic discharge for the statutory maximum period of four years (discharge suspended until 13 August 2008).
24 Sept 2004

RE RE GOOD SUCCESS CATERING GROUP LTD (“the Company”)

Citation

RE RE GOOD SUCCESS CATERING GROUP LTD (“the Company”)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW542/2002

Leyland Daf overruled Barleycorn; Hong Kong statutory provisions (ss.265(3B) and 265(4)) are materially the same as the UK provisions considered in Leyland Daf; therefore liquidation expenses are not payable out of funds realized under a floating charge ahead of preferential debts and the Official Receiver was entitled to refuse payment; appeal dismissed.
14 May 2003

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. YAN KWOK KEE GAY AND OTHERS

Citation

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. YAN KWOK KEE GAY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1237/2003

The court granted the extension because, on balance, the explanation for delay (liquidators' delayed report, respondent-contributed delay and voluminous records) together with the seriousness of the case (substantial asset deficiency and alleged statutory breaches) and the absence of demonstrated specific prejudice to respondents justified exercising the court's discretion in favour of the Official Receiver to grant a nine-month extension and leave to commence proceedings under s168H.
28 Jan 2003

RE LAM FUNG

Citation

RE LAM FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCBI927/2002

Section 128(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance applies to funds referred to in Rule 122C(2)(j); unclaimed dividends (funds held for payment to creditors but not collected) falling within Rule 122C(2)(j) must be dealt with in accordance with s128(1). The statutory duty is mandatory and parties cannot contract out of it. A nominee may either retain unclaimed funds until the six-month threshold and then pay them to the Official Receiver, or pay them to the Official Receiver upon termination of the IVA to obtain discharge; proposals must reflect s128(1).