Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Provisional liquidator remuneration

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2009

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD

Citation

RE LEHMAN BROTHERS FUTURES ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW438/2008

The court held that provisional liquidators appointed under section 193 and continuing in office after a winding up order under section 194(1)(aa) have their remuneration assessed by the court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction both before and after the making of the winding up order until a liquidator is appointed; the 2000 amendments and the definition of "liquidator" should be read as directed at provisional liquidators appointed under section 194(1A) (a drafting correction), not as converting s193 provisional liquidators into statutory liquidators under s196(2); Maxwell principles a…
12 Mar 2008

YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND ANOTHER v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS

Citation

YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND ANOTHER v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW132/2007

The court exercised its discretion: it ordered the Yeungs to pay the Tsangs' costs of the Tsangs' petitions taxed on the party-and-party basis and to pay the costs of the Yeungs' cross-petitions to the Tsangs taxed on the indemnity basis in default of agreement, because the cross-petitions were largely unfounded while the petitions had significant contested issues; the provisional liquidators' fees were held to be part of the liquidation costs to be borne by the companies and not payable personally by the Yeungs; costs of this costs hearing were ordered to lie where they fall (no order).
12 Mar 2008

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

Citation

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YUENG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2006

The court ordered that the Yeungs pay the Tsangs the costs of the Tsangs' petitions on the party and party basis and pay the costs of the Yeungs' cross-petitions to the Tsangs to be taxed on an indemnity basis; the remuneration and expenses of the provisional liquidators are not to be ordered to be paid personally by the Yeungs but are to be borne by the companies (i.e. form part of the liquidation costs); no order as to costs was made for the costs hearing itself.
27 May 1999

RE PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

RE PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW22/1998

The court held that provisional liquidators appointed under section 193 who continue in office after a winding up order remain subject to the court's control for remuneration for the entirety of their term and that the committee of inspection has no authority under section 196(2) to determine their remuneration for the post‑Order period; consequently payments released pursuant to the Official Receiver's Circular and taxations procured under a mistaken view of the law are voidable and are set aside.
27 May 1999

RE PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

RE PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW32/1998

The remuneration of provisional liquidators (other than the Official Receiver) for the entirety of their term of office, including the period after a winding up order, is a matter for the court to determine under its inherent jurisdiction; the Official Receiver's Office Circulars purporting to make payments final are ultra vires and payments and taxations effected pursuant to them in these cases are voidable and are set aside; no further interim payments to the provisional liquidators are ordered.
21 Nov 1985

RE SUM CHUN HIGH QUALITY SHOES FACTORY LTD.

Citation

RE SUM CHUN HIGH QUALITY SHOES FACTORY LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP92/1985

Allegations of misfeasance cannot be left unparticularised and inferred from affidavit material; where such allegations are made the Official Receiver must either commence formal proceedings (eg under s.276) or withdraw the allegations before the Court will determine the basis of remuneration. The assessment of remuneration cannot properly proceed while unresolved serious allegations remain outstanding; if the Official Receiver neither issues proceedings nor withdraws the allegations he is barred from raising them at the adjourned hearing.
21 Nov 1985

RE MILLIE\'S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.

Citation

RE MILLIE\'S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP91/1985

Where an interlocutory application to determine provisional liquidators' remuneration is met by unparticularised allegations of misfeasance by the Official Receiver, the Court will not deal with the allegations in the same proceeding; the Official Receiver must either commence s.276 proceedings or withdraw the allegations, otherwise he is barred from raising them at the adjourned hearing; allegations of fraud/misfeasance require strict particularisation and evidence before they can affect the course of assessment of fees.
21 Nov 1985

RE MILLIE\'S HANDBAG AND SHOES FACTORY LTD.

Citation

RE MILLIE\'S HANDBAG AND SHOES FACTORY LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP93/1985

The Court held that unparticularised allegations of misfeasance by the Official Receiver cannot be used to delay or derail the taxation of the provisional liquidators' fees; the Official Receiver must either commence separate proceedings under s.276 or withdraw the allegations, failing which he will be barred from raising them at the adjourned taxation hearing. The proper route for assessment of the applicants' fees is taxation by a Master pursuant to Rule 6 of the Companies (Winding‑up) Rules, subject to any legitimate exclusions of work not properly undertaken.
21 Nov 1985

RE MILLIE\'S WHOLESALE CENTRE LTD.

Citation

RE MILLIE\'S WHOLESALE CENTRE LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP94/1985

Allegations of misfeasance cannot be allowed to be dealt with on the fee assessment summonses without particularised evidence or separate proceedings; the Official Receiver must either commence proceedings (or apply under s.276) or withdraw the allegations, otherwise he is barred from raising them at the adjourned hearing of the present summonses. The fee assessment remains to be considered by a Master under the winding‑up rules.
21 Nov 1985

RE MILLIE\'S TRADING CO. LTD.

Citation

RE MILLIE\'S TRADING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP95/1985

The Court held that allegations of misfeasance cannot be litigated in the present summonses for directions as to remuneration; the Official Receiver must either commence separate proceedings under s.276 or withdraw the allegations, otherwise he is barred from raising them at the adjourned hearing; the proper course for assessment of the applicants' fees is by taxation before a Master pursuant to Rule 6 and a report to the Companies Judge.