Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compulsory winding up

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2024

盛益投資有限公司及另一人對楊國勳以華利貿易公司經營

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2123/2024

Plaintiffs were entitled to the declarations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the originating summons; a vesting order under Trustee Ordinance (Cap.29) s52(1)(e) was appropriate to vest the defendant's 77% shareholding in SZWL in RC; the court refused to order unspecified acts or to grant damages and interest because the applicant's affidavit lacked necessary evidential support; liberty to apply was granted and costs awarded to plaintiffs to be agreed or assessed.
20 Oct 2023

RE DRAGON SEAFOODS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2624
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW265/2021

Petition dismissed: the petitioner failed to show any credible, fair reason why the voluntary liquidation could not continue to investigate and pursue claims; the liquidator had acted diligently and impartially, had identified and begun investigating the suspect transactions, and was entitled to seek explanations and to go behind the prior summary judgment given the new evidence; compulsory winding up would not better serve creditors and was unnecessary.
18 Oct 2022

RE SAMWELL SPARE PARTS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW379/2021

A proportion of the liquidator's pre- and post-petition costs were properly and necessarily incurred in the voluntary liquidation and in addressing serious allegations and court updates; there was insufficient basis to fix those costs on the Connected Creditors; accordingly the liquidator's reasonable costs and any Official Receiver costs are liquidation expenses payable from the company's assets and the statutory priority of payment is not varied.
20 Sept 2011

TAM KWOK CHEONG v. WIN GLORY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAM KWOK CHEONG v. WIN GLORY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW301/2010

The petitioner commenced and continued a compulsory winding-up petition despite an existing consensus to effect a voluntary winding up and did so without prior warning; the petitioner acted irrationally and with an ulterior motive that amounted to an abuse of process, thereby justifying a departure from the ordinary rule and an award of costs against the petitioner to the 1st Respondent and Excellent Assets Limited on an indemnity basis, with the costs of the 2 August 2011 summons also to be paid by the petitioner and taxed if not agreed.
2 Mar 1992

RE BCCI FINANCE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Citation

RE BCCI FINANCE INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW217/1991

Given the emergence of substantial unrecorded claims exceeding available guarantees, the failure of sale negotiations and the absence of any viable alternative proposal from creditors, it was in the public interest and for the protection of depositors and creditors that both companies be compulsorily wound up.
25 Sept 1990

RE CHINO INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

RE CHINO INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW152/1990

The petitions were dismissed because the applicant failed to show due cause to remove the liquidators or to justify compulsory winding up: no evidence of actual bias or unfitness was proven, the joint liquidators had been properly appointed by a majority in value of creditors, they were experienced and had advanced the liquidation work, and replacing them would prejudice the liquidation by delay and additional cost; therefore it was not in the interests of the liquidation to make the orders sought.
2 Feb 1990

RE CARRIAN HOLDINGS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

RE CARRIAN HOLDINGS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW244/1983

The court will grant an order under section 209A where creditors' wishes and contributories' interests are considered, no public interest requires refusal, the stage of the liquidation and absence of supervisory concerns justify removal of routine Official Receiver oversight, and adequate safeguards (committee of inspection, reporting obligations, liberty to apply) are imposed; accordingly the application was granted subject to conditions and consequential orders.
7 Aug 1980

SIU KING CHEUNG HING YIP CO LTD AND OTHERS v. MALAYSIA BORNEO FINANCE CORPORATION (M) BERHAD

Citation

SIU KING CHEUNG HING YIP CO LTD AND OTHERS v. MALAYSIA BORNEO FINANCE CORPORATION (M) BERHAD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/1980

The Court of Appeal held the judge lacked jurisdiction to order the appellants to pay into court and to impose the participation prohibition sanction; the successful parties were entitled to their costs of the strike‑out applications, and the question who should pay (company, appellants, or both and in what proportions) should be reserved; leave to appeal was not required under s.14(3)(c) in the circumstances.