14 Jan 2008
The court found no bona fide dispute on liability, concluded the company was unable to pay its debts as they fell due, refused adjournment for Singapore law advice, and therefore granted the winding-up order.
21 Feb 2005
The court held that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident in Hong Kong because its sole director and controlling shareholder managed and controlled it from Hong Kong and its books were kept in Hong Kong; accordingly the application for security for costs under Order 23, rule 1(1)(a) failed and the appeal was dismissed; alternatively, even if the plaintiff were ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, the court would have refused security for costs in the exercise of discretion given the plaintiff's prospects and the 2nd defendant's role.
8 Apr 2004
Vinco was authorised by Long Shan to receive investor funds under the Mandates and received the plaintiff's cheque as Long Shan's agent; there is no evidence Vinco was the plaintiff's agent so no presumption of undue influence arises; the loan and guarantees are exempt from the Money Lenders Ordinance by s.24(5); accordingly the defendants' grounds fail and the appeal is dismissed.