Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protection of wages on insolvency

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2021

RE ORIENTAL KINGDOM RESTAURANT HOLDING LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 652
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW395/2020

Because the petitioner received payment under section 16 and, by section 24(1), the petitioner’s rights were transferred to and vested in the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund Board, and because the Board declined to substitute as petitioner, the petitioner no longer had the requisite interest to pursue the winding-up petition; the petition was therefore dismissed and costs ordered as per the notice of motion (petitioner’s costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations and Official Receiver’s costs of HK$4,100 to be borne by the petitioner and deducted from the deposit).
21 May 2003

HOONG CHIU KAI v. WAI YIP DISPENSARY LTD

Citation

HOONG CHIU KAI v. WAI YIP DISPENSARY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2054/2003

The ex parte injunction was properly discharged because the stocks seized were assets of the defendant and the applicant had no proprietary trust claim; the time limit under Order 59 rule 4 for setting down the appeal had expired and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, therefore leave to set down the appeal out of time was refused and the application dismissed to avoid further wasted costs.
3 Dec 2001

UDL ARGOS ENGINEERING & HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. v. LI OI LIN

Citation

UDL ARGOS ENGINEERING & HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. v. LI OI LIN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2001

The Court held that classes must be constituted by reference to the similarity of legal rights affected by the scheme; preferential creditors and internal creditors could sensibly be included in a single class where their legal rights were not so dissimilar as to prevent them consulting together; internal creditors special interests do not automatically require separate meetings and may be addressed by the Courts discretion when sanctioning; accordingly the scheme meetings were properly constituted and the sanction was lawful, so the appeals were dismissed.
9 Mar 2001

Re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

Citation

Re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV260/2000

The Court refused leave because the judge correctly applied the rights test to determine that the preferential creditors before the court did not constitute a separate class entitling them to separate meetings and the monetary and public importance thresholds under section 22 were not met; accordingly there were no issues meriting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.
9 Mar 2001

Re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

Citation

Re UDL Argos Engineering & Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV262/2000

Leave to appeal was refused because the preferential creditors represented in the application did not meet the HK$1,000,000 threshold under s22 and there were no questions of great or general public importance; the judge correctly applied the rights test and therefore was entitled to refuse separate meetings for preferential creditors.
22 May 2000

Re BG Lighting Co. Ltd.

Citation

Re BG Lighting Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW38/2000

Further adjournment refused and winding-up orders made because the companies failed to produce a viable restructuring proposal supported by requisite creditor agreement, there was no evidence of an investor able to inject required capital, and essential financial statements were unavailable, making a realistic restructuring impossible in the timeframe.
17 Mar 1995

In re Rena Gabriel H.K. Ltd.

Citation

In re Rena Gabriel H.K. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW489/1994

Where employees presented petitions solely to preserve eligibility for Section 16 payments and where conversion to compulsory winding-up would cause disproportionate additional costs and duplication without material advantage to creditors, the proper exercise of discretion is to stay the petitions until dissolution and order automatic dismissal on dissolution with no order as to costs, and to return deposits less Official Receiver's costs to date.
17 Mar 1995

In re Sun Star Electronics Co. Ltd.

Citation

In re Sun Star Electronics Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW46/1995

The court exercised its discretion to stay the employees' petitions until the companies' dissolution and ordered that upon dissolution the petitions be dismissed automatically with no order as to costs; deposits to be returned to petitioners less any costs properly attributable to the Official Receiver up to the date of the order, because conversion to compulsory winding-up would impose disproportionate additional costs and work and the remedy under voluntary winding-up was generally adequate absent special reasons to override creditor preference.