Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Provisional liquidator

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2017

RE GW ELECTRONICS CO LTD

Citation

RE GW ELECTRONICS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW81/2016

Leave to appeal against the Decision was granted under s.14AA(4)(b) because the interests of justice required the matter to be ventilated given the inevitable overlap between an appeal against the winding-up order and the underlying Decision; a stay of execution of the winding-up order was granted subject to a rider permitting receipt of further sums by the Provisional Liquidator and an undertaking by the Company to prosecute its appeals with due diligence.
4 Oct 2012

RE MF GLOBAL HONG KONG LTD

Citation

RE MF GLOBAL HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW356/2011

A provisional liquidator in office by virtue of section 194(1)(aa) of the Companies Ordinance is not a "liquidator" for the purposes of section 202(1); therefore section 202(1) and the ad valorem fee provisions of the Companies (Fees and Percentages) Order do not apply to sums realised by such provisional liquidators absent legislative change.
17 Feb 2011

ABDUL AZIZ ESSA v. CAPITAL GLOBE LTD

Citation

ABDUL AZIZ ESSA v. CAPITAL GLOBE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW422/2010

Because the Respondent had exhibited a balance sheet extracted from its audited accounts in an affidavit used in antecedent proceedings, Order 24 r10 gave the Petitioner an absolute right to require production/inspection of the full 2009 audited accounts; Practice Direction 3.4 did not override that rule, the accounts were relevant to the question of solvency and to fair disposal of the petition, and therefore discovery was ordered with costs to the Petitioner.
27 Jul 2010

RE JOINTEK CONSULTANTS LTD

Citation

RE JOINTEK CONSULTANTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1131/2004

Cause was shown under s.196(1) because Mr Nedderman had effectively abandoned his office by leaving Hong Kong and failing to make arrangements for continuation, causing prejudice to creditors; accordingly the court removed him and his co-liquidator, disallowed his fees, appointed replacement provisional liquidators (BDO representatives), ordered delivery of books and filing of disbursements, and awarded costs of $3,085 per application to the Official Receiver.
27 Jul 2010

RE WAYGAIN LTD

Citation

RE WAYGAIN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW912/2005

The court found that Mr Nedderman's disappearance from Hong Kong and failure to make arrangements for the continued operation of his practice and for co-liquidators to carry out their duties constituted 'cause shown' under s.196(1); accordingly the liquidators were removed, their fees disallowed because their failure prejudiced creditors, replacement liquidators were appointed, books and documents ordered delivered and costs of $3,085 awarded against Mr Nedderman for each application.
27 Jul 2010

RE KOOLL INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED SERVICES LTD

Citation

RE KOOLL INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED SERVICES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW722/2004

The court exercised its wide statutory discretion under s.196(1) to remove Mr Anthony Nedderman (and where applicable his co-liquidator) because his disappearance from Hong Kong and failure to put in place arrangements to enable the office to function constituted good cause, prejudicing creditors; accordingly his fees were disallowed, delivery of books and filing of a schedule of disbursements were ordered, BDO Limited officers were appointed as replacement provisional liquidators/liquidators, and costs of $3,085 were ordered against him.
27 Jul 2010

RE DIAMOND EARN INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RE DIAMOND EARN INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW877/2004

Given Mr Nedderman’s disappearance from Hong Kong, failure to make arrangements to allow his firm to continue the office and the resulting prejudice to creditors, the court (exercising the wide discretion under s.196(1) of the Companies Ordinance and applying Liote) found cause to remove him and his co-liquidators, disallowed his fees for failing to carry out the office properly, ordered delivery of books and permitted the replacement appointment of BDO nominees and an application for disbursements within specified timeframes; costs ordered against him.
27 Jul 2010

RE WEALTH FORD INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

RE WEALTH FORD INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW352/2004

The court found cause shown under s.196(1) because Mr Nedderman effectively abandoned his office by leaving Hong Kong and failing to make arrangements for continuing administration, thereby prejudicing creditors; accordingly the court removed Mr Nedderman and his co‑liquidators, disallowed his fees, ordered delivery of books and allowed appointment of named BDO appointees with directions on filing disbursements and costs payable by Mr Nedderman.
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 GOLDEN NICE INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

RE GOLDEN NICE INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW410/2005

Mr Nedderman's disappearance from Hong Kong and failure to put in place arrangements to enable continuation of administration constituted sufficient 'cause' under s.196(1) Companies Ordinance to remove him and his co-liquidators; in the circumstances removal and replacement with capable provisional liquidators is necessary to protect creditors' interests and to ensure delivery of books, proper filing of disbursements and administration of the winding-up; his fees were disallowed because his failure to carry out the office properly caused prejudice to creditors.