26 Oct 2017
Restoration ordered because the plaintiff demonstrated a concrete interest and, without restoration, could not register the vehicle transferred after the company’s dissolution; s.768(1) will treat the company as continuing in existence and thus enable the plaintiff to pursue registration and related steps.
20 Apr 2016
Clause 9 did not make adherence to the RURP an absolute condition entitling automatic termination; the plaintiff's obligation was to use best endeavours to police pricing and it did so. The defendant's purported termination on 13 February 2012 was a repudiatory breach. Plaintiff entitled to accept repudiation and recover damages: lost profits assessed at approximately HK$12,600,000 plus HK$208,672 for other losses, with interest and costs.
18 Sept 2006
Given the recorded judgment debt, proper service of demand, the Registrar's lack of objection and the absence of any defence or appearance by the company, the court exercised its power under s.291(7) to restore the company and ordered it to be wound up so creditors may pursue recovery.
29 Dec 1998
The respondent's notice and cross-appeal was struck out because it impermissibly sought to attack and re-open final findings of fact and law from the trial judgment via an appeal confined to costs, bypassing the expired time for appeal against the judgment; respondent's notice was also defective in form and conditional, and therefore not a conceivably arguable basis to challenge the costs order.