18 Oct 2024
The application to adduce fresh evidence fails the first Ladd v Marshall condition because the evidence (the alleged Oral Agreement and the corroborating affirmation of the Company director) could with reasonable diligence have been adduced at the hearing below; accordingly leave to adduce the new affirmations is refused and AREL's summons (and appeal) is dismissed.
24 Nov 2015
The Court held that ASM's claim was a liquidated debt for voting purposes because the amount was ascertained by the contractual machinery of the ISDA Master Agreement (notice of amount payable under clause 6), was supported by partial payments and repeated acknowledgements by Grande and was reasonably admitted by the provisional liquidators; accordingly ASM was entitled to vote and the Judge's order disallowing voting was set aside.
9 Jan 2015
The Early Termination Amount relied upon by ASM required valuation work (identification of quotations, market data and use of stochastic calculus for exotic derivatives) beyond mere arithmetic; accordingly the claim is an unliquidated debt for the purposes of Rule 125 and ASM was not entitled to vote and its proof admitted for voting purposes should be reversed.
9 Jan 2015
The sums claimed by Sidley Austin are not liquidated for the purposes of rule 125 because their quantification requires an assessment of the reasonableness and chargeability of recorded time and fees rather than mere arithmetic; accordingly the Provisional Liquidators' decision to admit the proofs for voting purposes is reversed, though the admission was not demonstrably wrong when made.
29 May 2013
The statutory demand purported to claim unliquidated damages rather than a liquidated sum and the respondent in good faith and on substantial grounds disputed the quantum; accordingly the statutory demand was defective and the petitioner lacked locus to present the winding-up petition, so the petition was dismissed.
11 Mar 2002
The Court held the sums claimed in the statutory demand were liquidated (arithmetically ascertainable) and there was no substantial bona fide dispute on the existence or quantification of the debt; consequently the striking out order was set aside, appeal allowed and the petitioner entitled to restore the petition and costs.
20 Sept 2000
The Guarantee, though containing both indemnity and performance provisions, did not establish an undisputed shortfall on the facts; material factual disputes as to the Vessel's value and whether Bright Islands/Nissho Iwai prevented resale meant the core debt was substantially disputed and presentation of the petition constituted an abuse of process — therefore the petition was struck out conditionally only; however HK$50,000 in legal fees (per the parties' capped agreement) was found to be payable by Mr Chao.