Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 177(1)(f) companies ordinance

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2014

CHINA ENERGY UTILIZATION LTD v. CHINA PEOPLE (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CHINA ENERGY UTILIZATION LTD v. CHINA PEOPLE (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW188/2013

The court refused to strike out the petitions in their entirety because it was not plain and obvious on the evidence before the court that the petitions could not succeed; however the court struck out the alternative prayers for winding-up because no facts were identified to justify a winding-up order when relief under s.168A could provide appropriate alternative orders, and ordered costs accordingly.
7 Jan 2009

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

HCCW50/2006

The provisional liquidators were removed because they accepted temporary funding and permitted routing of receipts and payments first through the personal bank account of Yeung Senior and subsequently through a Yeung‑controlled company (Long Summer) earning a 5% commission, without consulting the Tsangs or seeking court approval; those actions gave rise to an objectively reasonable perception of bias and a real and reasonable loss of confidence in their impartiality and stewardship. Weighing the cause shown against the disadvantages of removal, removal was ordered and Messrs Kong and Lo were…
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

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

HCCW130/2007

The court ordered the Yeungs to pay the Tsangs' costs of the petitions on a party-and-party basis and the costs of the Yeungs' cross-petitions to the Tsangs on an indemnity basis (in default of agreement), because the cross-petitions' allegations were largely unfounded while the petition issues were facets of the central event; the court refused to order the Yeungs personally to pay provisional liquidators' remuneration and expenses, holding those costs should remain part of the liquidation and borne by the companies absent exceptional circumstances; costs of the costs hearing were ordered as…
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

HCCW131/2007

The court held that the Yeungs should pay the Tsangs the costs of the petitions on the party and party basis but should pay the costs of the cross-petitions to the Tsangs on the indemnity basis because the cross-petition allegations were largely unfounded; provisional liquidator fees were not ordered to be paid by the Yeungs personally because the appointment was justified to preserve company operations and such fees, where a winding-up order is made, are to be regarded as part of the costs of the liquidation borne by the companies; no order as to costs of the costs hearing was made as the pa…
8 Dec 2006

LUK WAI FUN v. CEO INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUK WAI FUN v. CEO INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW344/2006

The court granted a validation order in part: validated salaries (as scheduled) and the laboratory test fee as reasonably incurred, refused validation of the petty cash item due to lack of breakdown or explanation, and validated recurrent business expenses prospectively at a capped amount of HKD65000 per month to enable the company to continue trading pending the petition because the balance sheet indicated solvency and continuation was in the interests of stakeholders.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA ENERGY UTILIZATION LTD v. CHINA PEOPLE (HONG KONG) LTD

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

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

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

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

LUK WAI FUN v. CEO INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER