1 Aug 2025
The court granted leave to cross-examine Ms Chan because the applicant identified relevant, unanswered, and material inconsistencies in her affirmation evidence such that cross-examination was necessary to advance the substantive removal application; accordingly the substantive application was adjourned to allow cross-examination and further determination.
6 Jul 2021
Because the Petitioner succeeded in establishing that the Liquidators’ conduct met the high threshold for removal, indemnity costs were appropriate; the Court refused to apportion costs and granted certificates for counsel as appropriate: three counsel for the appeal and two counsel for the costs application; the Judge’s costs order below stands where applicable.
3 Jun 2019
The cumulative proven conduct of the liquidators — deliberate or wilful misrepresentation in correspondence about their report to the court, refusal to provide proofs and evidence to the committee of inspection, failure to consult the COI on compromise/adjournment decisions and persistent delay and adversarial conduct resulting in prolonged liquidation and escalating fees — amounted to cause under s196(1) Cap 32; removal was in the best interests of creditors and contributories and the Official Receiver was ordered to replace the liquidators and convene a creditors' meeting to consider altern…
10 Jul 2015
The court refused interim restraint because the liquidators are court-appointed and entitled to exercise commercial judgment in voting the company's shares; Red Victory did not show that the liquidators acted in bad faith or in a manner no reasonable liquidator could have acted, nor that the proposed voting was egregiously wrong; therefore interim intervention to restrain voting pending the removal application was not justified.
7 Sept 2011
On the balance of probabilities the respondents committed multiple breaches of their duties as provisional liquidators/liquidators warranting disqualification under s168G; applying the bracket approach the court disqualified Danvil Chan for 7 years (middle bracket) and Chan Man Yiu for 3 years (minimum bracket), ordered costs against both, and granted Chan Man Yiu leave to act as director of the named company Billion Asia due to its small scale and his need to preserve livelihood.
8 Feb 2011
The judge held that Metroplex's application to remove the liquidators was final in nature because it raised the substantive issue of the incumbent liquidators' fitness, independent of the liquidation itself; therefore the court had jurisdiction under Order 23 RHC to order security for costs. Exercising that discretion, and having regard to Metroplex's foreign domicile, lack of assets in Hong Kong and doubts about solvency arising from a Malaysian provisional liquidator order, the court ordered Metroplex to provide security for costs of HK$386,000 and awarded costs against Metroplex (80%).
2 Dec 2009
The respondents were removed because they made false declarations in tender documents, failed to remit and unlawfully deducted part of the surplus proceeds of $387,891.37 contrary to statutory duty, failed to report the realisation, and failed to provide required security — conduct demonstrating they are not fit and proper persons to continue as liquidators under sections 196(1) and 202(2A) of the Companies Ordinance.
29 Oct 2009
The Court of Appeal concluded the provisional liquidators acted in ways that caused the petitioners reasonably to lose confidence and gave reasonable grounds for a perception of bias in favour of the Yeungs (failure to consult, channel receipts through Yeung Senior, adoption of Long Summer with a retrospective 5% commission, and lack of court directions); balancing the interests of the liquidation, the judge properly exercised his discretion to remove them and the appeals were dismissed.
10 Jan 2007
The liquidators were entitled to their costs of both applications because they did not act unreasonably in opposing the summonses or in preparing evidence; therefore the applicant must pay the liquidators' costs, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed; no order as to costs between the applicants and the opposing creditors.
6 Sept 2006
The court removed Mr Lui and Mr Ha as liquidators because Mr Lui's conduct fell below the required standard and justified removal; the court declined to appoint the Applicant's proposed replacements and ordered that a creditors' meeting determine replacement liquidators; the court held Mr Lui must pay the Applicant's costs of the application and NMKY's costs of attending, to be taxed on the party-and-party basis if not agreed; no costs order against Mr Ha; none of those costs are to be recoverable from the Company's assets.