Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Receivers and managers

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2023

HUNDRED GAIN INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD v. CHENG MEI HOLDINGS LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2705
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA502/2023

The Agreement is a contract for the sale of the Shares and Sale Loan only and does not create any legal or equitable interest in the Property because the owner (Smart Edge) is not a party, the receivers acted as agents and disclaimed personal liabilities, and contractual provisions relied on (vacant possession, title deeds, risk) do not convert a share sale into a land disposition; consequently the Agreement and the Writ (so far as based on the Agreement) are not registrable under the LRO and the Writ is to be removed from the pending section; the equitable lien claim is a lis pendens but is…
30 Dec 2022

JUMBO FAIR LTD AND OTHERS v. PACM SERIES 235 LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3750
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1258/2021

Tender of 30 August 2021 was invalid because plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient objective evidence that the tender sum was set aside and available for immediate payment; accordingly interest did not cease on that date and continued to accrue until plaintiffs paid into court on 15 September 2021; several items claimed by defendant were disallowed as not properly or reasonably incurred in relation to enforcement (CBRE valuation fees, Fonto consultancy fee, and pre-assignment legal due diligence) while certain costs were allowed (specified legal fees of US$105,350.28 ~ HK$821,732.18, receiv…
15 Jun 2012

RE DIANOOR INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

RE DIANOOR INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW576/2008

The court held that Aiyer and Wani acted on behalf of the companies pursuant to an express reservation of powers and were not parties in their personal capacity; accordingly costs of the validation order and provisional liquidator applications are payable by the companies as liquidation expenses, the Petitioners are entitled to their costs of the validation applications, and the Jersey Receivers' costs of HCMP 789/2008 are to be paid by the companies (3rd and 4th defendants) taxed on party and party if not agreed.
1 Dec 2011

SUN JIANGRONG v. SUN SHAOHUA AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUN JIANGRONG v. SUN SHAOHUA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1526/2010

The consent summons did not constitute a binding contract preventing variation; Order 3 Rule 5 applies to final judgments and empowers the court to extend time for acts required by an order; therefore the court granted the applicant's summons to extend time to convene the meeting and ordered the respondents to pay 75% of the applicant's costs; leave to appeal refused.
29 Sept 2010

DIANOOR INTERNATIONAL LTD v. AIYER VEMBU SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

DIANOOR INTERNATIONAL LTD v. AIYER VEMBU SUBRAMANIAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA806/2008

Where the affidavit/affirmation evidence is central to the dispute and credibility or allegations of dishonesty arise (supported by prior findings and familial/connections raising suspicion), the court must require the deponents to be available for cross-examination before allowing their affirmations to be read; the court may, in its discretion, permit evidence by video link rather than require physical attendance.
1 Jun 2005

CHINA UNITED HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. LAM HOW MUN PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA UNITED HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. LAM HOW MUN PETER AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1589/2003

The court refused the interim injunction because the mortgagee's right to possession is not displaced by the 3rd plaintiff's claim for unliquidated damages; the balance of convenience favoured the mortgagee given the vacant premises, the debt significantly exceeded the court valuation, interest was accruing, and the applicant could not provide a suitably fortified cross-undertaking in damages.
16 Jun 2004

UMBRELLA FINANCE CO LTD v. JIM WARDELL AND OTHERS

Citation

UMBRELLA FINANCE CO LTD v. JIM WARDELL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1436/2004

The court declared the dissolution void and reinstated Emex Investment Limited because reinstatement was necessary and appropriate to remove doubt about the status of the charged properties (which might otherwise be bona vacantia) and to enable the mortgagee/assignee and receivers to validly assign and complete sale under the power of sale; respondents raised no objection and consequential orders were justified.
25 Mar 2002

RE WIRELESS INTERNETWORKS LTD.

Citation

RE WIRELESS INTERNETWORKS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5550/2001

The court sanctioned the scheme because the statutory conditions in s.166 were satisfied: a single class of unsecured creditors was properly constituted (Noteholders did not have distinct legal rights giving rise to a separate class), the court's directions were complied with, the required majority in number and value (17 of 19 creditors representing over 97% in value) voted in favour after proper explanation and bona fide, and the scheme was one an intelligent and honest creditor might reasonably approve given otherwise likely zero recovery and investor undertakings to proceed even if hive-d…
1 Mar 2002

RE S. MEGGA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.

Citation

RE S. MEGGA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5550/2001

The judge exercised discretion to permit the Receivers to file evidence in reply and adjourned the S. Megga scheme to allow that evidence to be filed; the judge further adjourned the Wireless Internetworks (Win) scheme because the hive down interdependency created a real risk that successful challenge in S. Megga's liquidation could affect the restructuring, making it inappropriate to hear Win separately.
1 Mar 2002

RE S. MEGGA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.

Citation

RE S. MEGGA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5551/2001

The Receivers are entitled to put in the indicated affidavit in reply concerning employees' preferential entitlements under section 79; because those issues and the potential challenge to the hive down are material to the restructuring, both the S. Megga and the Wireless Internetworks (Win) scheme hearings must be adjourned to enable that evidence to be filed and considered, and to prevent potential prejudice if the hive down is subsequently set aside.