Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Section 228a

  • 12 Jan 2015

    LU JUN v. ASTROTEC COMPANY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

    Citation
    LU JUN v. ASTROTEC COMPANY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3125/2014

    The application to file opposing evidence out of time was refused because the respondent's delay was unexplained and unparticularised, its stated logistical excuses (director in Shanghai, festive season) were not credible in the modern communications context and/or postdated the deadline, and the respondent's evidence lacked substantive particulars and conflicted with the winding-up statement, with no authority shown to justify the asserted use of s228A.

  • 16 Jan 2007

    RE LEE CHUAN TECK

    Citation
    RE LEE CHUAN TECK
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2703/2006

    Because the s228A procedure was improperly invoked without the required directors' resolution, the winding-up was commenced on an unjustified basis; there was no prejudice to creditors (the only remaining creditor was the applicant who would waive the debt) and no public interest concern, so a permanent stay of the winding-up was appropriate to allow deregistration.

  • 29 Apr 2002

    RE FIVEOCEANS SUPPLY SERVICES LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)

    Citation
    RE FIVEOCEANS SUPPLY SERVICES LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW1379/2001

    The court stayed the section 228A winding-up and ordered a compulsory winding-up so that section 182 remedies can be pursued; the usual winding-up order operates so that the Official Receiver becomes provisional liquidator under s194(1)(a); the court declined to displace the statutory role of the Official Receiver by appointing private provisional liquidators in his place and indicated the proper procedure is for the Official Receiver to appoint special managers and for creditors to confirm liquidators at the first meeting.

  • 30 Oct 1996

    PETER DE KRASSEL AND ANOTHER v. FRANCIS ROXAS MORAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    PETER DE KRASSEL AND ANOTHER v. FRANCIS ROXAS MORAN AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3209/1995

    The court ordered winding up under Section 177(1)(d), refused any stay of that winding up at this stage, stayed the Section 228A miscellaneous proceedings because a compulsory winding up was proceeding and two winding up processes cannot run concurrently, adjourned the appointment of joint liquidators pending formal paperwork, and directed that the costs of the winding up petition be paid by CAL while making no order as to costs in the Miscellaneous Proceedings (duplicated costs disallowed).