Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 221 companies (winding up and miscellaneous provisions) ordinance

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2019

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. CHRISTOPHER BARRY ABBISS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 67
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2590/2017

Order 81 r.1 is a procedural rule applicable to claims begun by originating summons and extends to orders under section 221; therefore an order made in the name of a firm under s221 is valid and enforceable. Whether enforcement should proceed by orders against the partnership or against individual partners depends on whether service and obligations under RHC O.45 r.7(2)(a) were complied with and on partnership liability rules. Costs consequences flow from who was properly and reasonably joined.
3 May 2018

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. SAMSON TSANG TAK YUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 252
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/2015

Section 221(3)'s phrase 'relating to the company' must be construed to include at least the matters encompassed by s221(1)/s221(2); the documents sought by the Liquidators related to the Company because they were relevant to tracing assets and assessing the value and recoverability of potential causes of action, and production should be ordered; appeal allowed and production ordered.
23 Mar 2018

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (in liquidation) v. KPMG (a firm)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2276/2016

The defendant seeking early service under Order 12 rule 8A bears the burden of proving that it would be unjust to allow the protective writs to run their natural expiry; that threshold is high and was not met because (1) service is not necessary to obtain letters of request, (2) the Mutual Arrangement is unlikely to produce the full scope of documents or meet the Liquidators’ investigatory purposes, (3) KPMG failed to show a good prospect of obtaining and enforcing letters of request, and (4) KPMG substantially caused delay by obstructing compliance with section 221 orders; accordingly the ap…
23 Mar 2018

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (in liquidation) v. KPMG (a firm)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1822/2013

KPMG failed to discharge the high burden under Order 12 r 8A to show it would be unjust to allow the protective writs to run their natural course: service is not necessary to obtain letters of request, the MOF opinion did not establish that voluntary production is unlawful, the Mutual Arrangement is uncertain and inadequate for the Liquidators' broader investigatory purposes under the section 221 orders, and the delay was substantially caused by KPMG's obstructive conduct; accordingly the application to force service is dismissed.
19 Aug 2015

Y v. A AND OTHERS

Citation

Y v. A AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW435/2012

An order under s.221 was granted because the court found special circumstances: a substantial prima facie fraudulent misappropriation via a chain of companies justified ordering production and examination of the 3rd to 5th respondents despite their non-officer status; paragraph 9 of the draft order was modified to grant those respondents liberty to apply to set aside the order with no time limit, and costs were reserved.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. CHRISTOPHER BARRY ABBISS AND OTHERS

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. SAMSON TSANG TAK YUNG

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (in liquidation) v. KPMG (a firm)

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (in liquidation) v. KPMG (a firm)

Y v. A AND OTHERS