Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restoration to register

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2025

KENTWELL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4510
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1168/2025

Because the evidence established that HCA2231/2014 was ongoing when the Company applied for deregistration, the deregistration did not comply with s.750(2)(d) of the Companies Ordinance; the Applicant demonstrated entitlement to restoration and the court therefore ordered restoration subject to conditions to ensure the High Court action is pursued, and awarded costs to the Applicant.
1 Mar 2023

WAN PAK KWONG RAYMOND v. THE NURSING COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 272
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV248/2022

Removal of the appellant's name from the Register for an indefinite period was manifestly excessive and disproportionate in all the circumstances; the Court of Appeal will set aside such an order where it falls outside the reasonable range of options and remit to the Nursing Council to determine an appropriate specified period of removal, having regard to the Council's expertise and the materials before it.
20 Dec 2019

WAN MING YEUNG v. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1294/2019

The Part I Inquiry was a 'due inquiry' because it was conducted substantially in accordance with the DRDPR; the Council never found the Notice of Inquiry defective nor directed amendment under Regulation 23 so the Secretary was not obliged to amend the Notice; particulars provided separately were sufficient and no injustice or prejudice was shown; delay was attributable to the applicant and other complaints did not establish abuse of process or unfairness; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review had no realistic prospect of success and was dismissed.
12 Dec 2019

HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH AND ANOTHER v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1867/2017

The court dismissed both the s765 restoration and the s42 rectification/removal applications because the applicants failed to establish it would be 'just' to restore the Company given deliberate and opaque deregistration conduct, fabricated and inconsistent evidence, lack of adequate disclosure on who funded and instructed post-dissolution litigation, and because rectification/removal would improperly achieve the practical effects of restoration despite the court finding restoration not just; Jaldhi was permitted to be joined as a party.
12 Dec 2019

HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP76/2019

Relief under both routes was refused: restoration under s.765 was not just because applicants produced fabricated, inconsistent and back‑dated evidence and the deregistration was likely a deliberate device to evade liabilities; rectification/removal under s.42 was inappropriate as a back‑door to restoration and the discretionary balance did not favor the applicants; however Jaldhi was properly joined as it had direct interests. Costs ordered against applicants on indemnity scale.
27 Feb 2019

ZHANG LIQIN v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1910/2017

Because the impugned documents were unauthorized and included a forged Form D2A, the 3rd respondent was never validly appointed or entered as member and thus had no authority to apply for deregistration; consequently the deregistration and dissolution were a nullity, s461 does not validate the acts, and the court will grant a declaration of voidness and order removal of forged/unauthorised documents under s42.
25 Jul 2014

DR WONG TAK LUN v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

DR WONG TAK LUN v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/2013

Leave to appeal refused: recommendations under s21 Cap 161 are not appealable because they are not orders; the Court independently re‑sentenced and reaching the same penalty on a reassessed, lesser culpability does not establish an error warranting leave under the 'otherwise' limb.
13 Feb 2007

PETER PO FUN CHAN v. WINNIE C W CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

PETER PO FUN CHAN v. WINNIE C W CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2006

Extension of time was refused because no valid explanation for the delay was shown and the matter had been handled without dispatch and improperly presented; even if time had been extended, leave under s22(1)(b) would have been refused because the points raised either exceeded the matters argued on appeal or did not meet the threshold of great or general public importance and the application was only a preliminary sieving step.
3 Oct 2005

RE SHUN QUN INDUSTRIAL CO LTD

Citation

RE SHUN QUN INDUSTRIAL CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW556/2005

The petitioner established an unpaid judgment debt, satisfied service and advertisement requirements, and there was no defence or opposition; accordingly the Court restored the struck-off company to the register and ordered it to be wound up on reinstatement, with payment directions for Registrar's costs and the petitioner's costs payable out of the company's assets.
12 Jul 2004

RE KIMBERLY GOLD LTD

Citation

RE KIMBERLY GOLD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW449/2004

Where a company has been struck off the register the court retains jurisdiction to restore the company under the cited authorities and statutory provisions and to wind it up; in the absence of opposition and with the Registrar's non-objection and appropriate notice regarding bona vacantia, the court will order restoration and winding up and direct that the petitioner's costs be paid from the company's assets.