Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deregistration

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2024

CHO YUK PING v. YOUNG WORLD ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 155
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1597/2022

The court granted the director's application: Cho is entitled under s.374 and common law to inspect the classes of documents identified; LCK must affirm whether the identified documents are in the Company's power, control or custody and must permit Cho access to available documents unless already provided; costs to follow the event and be paid by LCK.
13 Dec 2023

TAGUCHI SHINICHI v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3153
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1180/2023

The court restored the Company because the evidence showed the Company retained valuable assets (the three Netblocks) and therefore had more than a shadowy prospect of establishing value, and on the available evidence IPTT held the shares as nominee for the Applicant making him the beneficial owner.
12 Dec 2019

HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH AND ANOTHER v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1867/2017

The court dismissed both the s765 restoration and the s42 rectification/removal applications because the applicants failed to establish it would be 'just' to restore the Company given deliberate and opaque deregistration conduct, fabricated and inconsistent evidence, lack of adequate disclosure on who funded and instructed post-dissolution litigation, and because rectification/removal would improperly achieve the practical effects of restoration despite the court finding restoration not just; Jaldhi was permitted to be joined as a party.
17 Sept 2019

HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2675
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP76/2019

The court concluded that Zadeh, who invoked the court's jurisdiction, is in substance the plaintiff; an intended intervener providing adverse evidence does not become the plaintiff for purposes of security for costs; the analysis of plaintiff/defendant must be made by reference to the action as a whole; on the facts Jaldhi had sufficient assets/credit facilities and there was no credible testimony establishing inability to pay; even if statutory requirements could be made out the court would exercise its discretion to refuse security having regard to the circumstances (including reciprocal en…
5 Nov 2018

QU WEI JIAN v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2563
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP822/2018

The court exercised its discretion under s.765(2) of the Companies Ordinance to restore the company because restoration was just in the circumstances: assets remained in a securities account that required an extant company to recover them, the Registrar consented and proposed terms, there was no demonstrable prejudice to third parties or to the estate of a deceased former shareholder, and the applicant agreed to the Registrar's terms.
3 Jul 2018

LU CHENG LU v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1645
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2694/2017

Because the 2nd respondent initiated the deregistration without evidence of applicant's consent and then opposed restoration without basis or utility, the court ordered that the 2nd respondent bear the costs of the Originating Summons and applicant's first affirmation and the Registrar's fee of HK$5,000 on the usual party and party basis, but awarded indemnity costs in respect of costs incurred after the applicant's first affirmation due to the respondent's conduct.
12 Sept 2014

杭州日月電器股份有限公司 v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

Citation

杭州日月電器股份有限公司 v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP653/2014

The court granted restoration because the Applicant demonstrated it was aggrieved and applied within the statutory 20‑year period and, on the evidence, had a bona fide claim; the court declined to decide the substantive dispute in this proceeding and held that absence of assets or insolvency is not a decisive reason to refuse restoration under the Ordinance.
7 May 2012

DAY GOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

DAY GOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL30/2006

Proceedings were struck out because the applicant company, having deregistered itself and shown prolonged inaction and no intention to prosecute, constituted an abuse of process under Grovit v Doctor and the case should not be left in abeyance even if reinstatement under s291AB(2) might be possible.
24 Jul 2009

RE SANLIUYIDU (HONG KONG) SPORTS GOODS CO LTD

Citation

RE SANLIUYIDU (HONG KONG) SPORTS GOODS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1152/2009

The court concluded the non-compliance was inadvertent, shareholders were not prejudiced and adequate remedial steps had been taken (accounts prepared, advisers replaced and written resolutions passed), therefore it was appropriate to exercise the discretionary powers under s122(1B) and s111 to regularise the defaults and grant the relief sought.
16 Jan 2007

RE LEE CHUAN TECK

Citation

RE LEE CHUAN TECK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2703/2006

Because the s228A procedure was improperly invoked without the required directors' resolution, the winding-up was commenced on an unjustified basis; there was no prejudice to creditors (the only remaining creditor was the applicant who would waive the debt) and no public interest concern, so a permanent stay of the winding-up was appropriate to allow deregistration.