Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Financial statements

Legal area

Court

20 May 2022

CHANG CHING HSIN v. T.D.C. GROUP (H.K.) CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1474
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP111/2021

Leave granted because the plaintiff demonstrated at least a serious issue to be tried on both causes of action (2018 and 2019 statements), it is in the company’s interests to pursue the claims, the other statutory requirements were met, and the disputed factual and documentary issues (existence of alleged profit‑sharing agreement and invoices) require fuller investigation at trial; Koo’s late 3rd affirmation was refused as it did not assist the leave application.
18 May 2021

RE KIDSLOOP LTD (“the Company”)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP338/2021

The court granted the extension because the Company applied before the statutory deadline, demonstrated that the delays were inadvertent and caused by legitimate auditing and valuation complexities and COVID‑19 constraints, shareholders had been kept informed and suffered no prejudice, and the company was likely to comply with its obligations in future.
28 Oct 2019

HUANG FU HSIUNG AND ANOTHER v. TECHLUXE INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3014
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1685/2019

Because the failure to hold AGMs was inadvertent, audited financial statements existed and shareholders had access to necessary information, and because the matters of qualification could be placed before shareholders, the court exercised its power under the Companies Ordinance to order a general meeting within 28 days to be treated as the AGMs for 2015-2017 and substituted the statutory laying requirements accordingly; no order as to costs was made.
15 Mar 2018

WOO CHU v. HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 640
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2747/2017

The court concluded the non-compliance was inadvertent and, having regard to the reasons for delay (audit delays, business closures and meeting difficulties) and the limited nature of the extensions sought (short periods for 2016–17 and nine months for 2016), it was appropriate to exercise the court's discretion under the Companies Ordinance to extend the time and make the orders sought, subject to correction of clerical errors in the originating summonses and a specific amendment to the period in HCMP 2746/2017.
28 Feb 2014

ANDREW KENNETH SOFFA AND OTHERS v. SASCO ASIA, LTD

Citation

ANDREW KENNETH SOFFA AND OTHERS v. SASCO ASIA, LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3218/2013

The court accepted the applicant's construction of the s111(1) proviso and held that where the proviso has not been relied on the company was required to hold annual general meetings in both the year of incorporation and the following year; accordingly the court granted orders extending time to convene AGMs to cure the breaches of s111 and s122.
30 Jan 2014

TANG WAI TING SAMSON AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD

Citation

TANG WAI TING SAMSON AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2862/2013

Time was extended under s122(1B) because the non-compliance was inadvertent, relatively inconsequential given the company was dormant in early years and audited accounts were prepared and laid, the applicants were aware of the financial position, and steps were taken to ensure future compliance, making the discretionary relief appropriate.
15 Apr 2013

GRAND ASIAN LTD v. SHOE MART CO LTD

Citation

GRAND ASIAN LTD v. SHOE MART CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP590/2013

The court exercised its discretion under ss111(2) and 122(1B) of the Companies Ordinance and granted rectification for both Shoe Mart and Cobblers because the defaults were inadvertent, the sole shareholder was not prejudiced and adequate steps had been taken to ensure future compliance; relief granted was made conditional on undertakings to notify the Stock Exchange and to refer the order and reasons in any relevant prospectus; no order as to costs.
16 Apr 2012

DIE UKW HONG KONG LTD v. FAN KAM HON

Citation

DIE UKW HONG KONG LTD v. FAN KAM HON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2524/2011

The defendant established arguable defences and raised multiple triable issues — notably uncertainty whether director's remuneration was paid or set off, misallocation of a $113,111.25 dividend, and lack of direct evidence from the controlling director — such that summary judgment was inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend must be granted.