18 Oct 2019
The court concluded the respondents failed to prove the asserted settlement or set-off by reliable evidence (their calculations and exhibits were not shown to have been available or seen by the deponent at the relevant time), therefore the USD100,000 debt remained outstanding and the petition for winding up was sustainable.
7 May 2009
On the evidence the Company was insolvent, the proposed instalment repayment plan was speculative and lacked credible assurance of performance given the Company's and related Panyu Perfecta's indebtedness and frozen assets; multiple substantial creditors supported the petition; therefore the court was satisfied a winding-up order should be made and an adjournment would serve no useful purpose.
27 Jun 2005
The court made a winding-up order because the petitioner proved enforceable judgments, established a remaining indebtedness of HK$9,024,366.97 after realization of secured property, served a demand and negotiations failed, demonstrating the company could not pay its debts.
26 Apr 2001
If the company only asserts a dispute without adducing evidence, the court may order substitution and require evidence to be filed; where the company has adduced evidence of a bona fide substantial dispute the court must determine that issue before substitution. On the facts the company failed to show a bona fide substantial dispute as to the dishonoured cheques and Wenden was entitled to substitution effective from the date of the summons.