10 Sept 2020
The petition was struck out because at the time of the initial bankruptcy the petitioner’s beneficial interest in the shares vested in the Official Receiver; consequently the petitioner had no locus to present or pursue a winding-up petition affecting those shares absent the Official Receiver’s consent, which had not been obtained or shown.
18 Jun 2009
On the evidence before the court the Company demonstrated a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to whether it or the PRC subsidiary was legally liable for the asserted debt; contemporaneous documents predominantly show the PRC subsidiary as the contracting party and conflicting documentary and testimonial matters require trial/cross-examination — accordingly the winding-up petition was dismissed without a trial and without prejudice to the petitioner commencing ordinary proceedings against the appropriate entity.
20 Mar 2002
Leave to appeal was refused because the points advanced did not raise matters of great general or public importance and were largely fact-specific or disguised issues of fact; the plain and obvious test was correctly applied and the matter was inappropriate for interlocutory appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
11 Mar 2002
The Court held the sums claimed in the statutory demand were liquidated (arithmetically ascertainable) and there was no substantial bona fide dispute on the existence or quantification of the debt; consequently the striking out order was set aside, appeal allowed and the petitioner entitled to restore the petition and costs.
19 Nov 2001
Because the company was dissolved by way of a creditors voluntary winding-up and is therefore dissolved as at 29 April 2001 pursuant to section 248 of the Companies Ordinance, the pending winding-up petition must be struck out.
20 Sept 2000
The Guarantee, though containing both indemnity and performance provisions, did not establish an undisputed shortfall on the facts; material factual disputes as to the Vessel's value and whether Bright Islands/Nissho Iwai prevented resale meant the core debt was substantially disputed and presentation of the petition constituted an abuse of process — therefore the petition was struck out conditionally only; however HK$50,000 in legal fees (per the parties' capped agreement) was found to be payable by Mr Chao.
20 Oct 1999
Where an opposing contributory alleges that a winding‑up petition is presented for an improper purpose and is an abuse of process, that party must promptly present and prove the abuse‑of‑process case before the hearing of the petition; failure to do so risks dismissal for delay and, if the allegation fails, the petition proceeds to be heard.
7 Aug 1980
The Court of Appeal held the judge lacked jurisdiction to order the appellants to pay into court and to impose the participation prohibition sanction; the successful parties were entitled to their costs of the strike‑out applications, and the question who should pay (company, appellants, or both and in what proportions) should be reserved; leave to appeal was not required under s.14(3)(c) in the circumstances.