Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Provisional liquidators' remuneration

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2024

ACROPOLIS LTD v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW218/2017

Where a taxing master adjourns contested procedural matters to a judge for directions, the judge has jurisdiction to determine directions on how the forthcoming taxation review should be conducted and may order a trial of preliminary issues. An alleged prior agreement or understanding limiting provisional liquidators' fees, if established, is a relevant factor that the taxing master should be directed to consider in the taxation review; accordingly preliminary issues on existence and effect of a claimed fee cap should be tried. Joining Acropolis was unnecessary because it is already a party t…
23 Feb 2022

RE NIMBLE HOLDINGS CO LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 519
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW177/2011

The court accepted it had power to reopen ex parte assessments but exercised its discretion against the Company. The Company failed to show that Sutton 4 and subsequent expert reviews produced new cogent evidence justifying a reassessment after prolonged delay; the delay was unexplained or inadequately justified and would cause substantial and disproportionate prejudice to the former PLs (loss of witnesses, records, and heavy cost). The concerns raised were minor, explicable, or already within the taxing Master's remit; therefore reopening was refused and the summons dismissed.
27 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW442/2008

The remuneration of provisional liquidators appointed under section 193 and continuing in office after a winding up order under section 194(1)(aa) is to be assessed by the court under its inherent jurisdiction (not by operation of section 196(2)); the Maxwell Principles govern assessment; Winding Up Rules references to "provisional liquidator" introduced in 2000 should be read to target provisional liquidators appointed under s194(1A) and do not extend mandatory taxation requirements to s193 provisional liquidators continuing under s194(1)(aa); the provisional liquidation period ends when the…
27 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW452/2008

The remuneration of provisional liquidators appointed under section 193 is to be assessed by the court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction both before and after the making of a winding up order until a liquidator is appointed by the court; the 2000 amendments and related definition do not displace that position as to s193 appointees; agents' bills of such s193 provisional liquidators are not automatically subject to taxation under the Winding Up Rules unless a challenge is brought; the provisional liquidation period ends when the court appoints a liquidator; the court may appoint an asse…
27 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW464/2008

The court held that provisional liquidators appointed under s.193 and continuing in office under s.194(1)(aa) have their remuneration assessed by the court under its inherent jurisdiction (Maxwell Principles apply); the 2000 amendments and related definition do not convert s.193 provisional liquidators into statutory liquidators for the purpose of s.196(2) or automatically subject their agents' bills to taxation; provisional liquidation ends when the court appoints liquidators following meetings; the judge may appoint an assessor under s.53 to assist, and the assessor was appointed to conside…
25 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS SECURITIES ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS SECURITIES ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW437/2008

The court exercised its jurisdiction to grant interim payments but limited the interim drawdown to 75% of the claimed fees for the Provisional Liquidators and their agents (excluding fees relating to Billing Tasks) and 100% of other disbursements, on the basis that the applications were supported by extensive evidence, but that caution was required given unresolved assessment matters (charge-out rates, potential reductions, and absence yet of an assessor); Billing Tasks were excluded from interim payment pending further assessment; undertakings to repay any excess were obtained and a validati…
25 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW452/2008

The court exercised its jurisdiction to permit interim payments on account but limited the payment to 75% of the fees claimed for the provisional liquidation period (excluding fees relating to billing tasks) and 100% of other disbursements, granted liberty to apply for further interim payments, required undertakings from the Provisional Liquidators and principal Hong Kong solicitors to repay any excess, and validated the payments under section 182; billing-task fees were excluded from interim payment pending further assessment.
25 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW463/2008

The court exercised its jurisdiction to order interim payments but reduced the percentage sought: it ordered interim payments of 75% of the fees claimed by the provisional liquidators and their agents for the provisional liquidation period (excluding fees for billing tasks), granted 100% interim reimbursement of other disbursements, declined any interim payment for billing tasks pending further assessment, and required undertakings to repay any excess; the court also granted a validation order under section 182 and reserved costs.
25 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW442/2008

The court exercised its jurisdiction to authorise interim payments on account of provisional liquidators' remuneration in this large, complex multi-jurisdictional liquidation, but limited the interim quantum to 75% of the fees claimed for the Provisional Liquidators and their agents (excluding Billing Tasks) and allowed 100% of other disbursements; Billing Tasks were excluded from interim payment pending further assessment; undertakings to repay excess were accepted and a validation order under s182 was granted; liberty to apply for further interim payments was given.
25 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW464/2008

The court exercised its jurisdiction to grant interim payments on account of the provisional liquidators' fees and disbursements: it ordered 75% interim payment of fees claimed for the provisional liquidation period (excluding fees for Billing Tasks), 100% interim payment of other disbursements, refused interim payment for Billing Tasks pending further assessment, required undertakings to repay any excess (with specified solicitors providing undertakings), granted validation under section 182, and gave liberty to apply for further interim payments.