Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary winding-up procedure

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2006

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW572/2001

The court holds that s196(2) and r146(2) confer an unfettered discretion on the court to determine the basis of remuneration for liquidators in summary cases and that the Official Receiver's percentage scale is not the default; as a matter of practice the time cost basis should be adopted for remuneration in summary cases and should be provided for when a summary procedure order under s227F is made.
7 Jul 2006

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW575/2001

The court held that under s196(2) and r146(2) it has an unfettered discretion to fix liquidator remuneration in summary cases; r146(2) does not make the Official Receiver's percentage scale the default. As a matter of practice the court will adopt the time cost basis as the standard for remuneration of liquidators in summary winding-ups under s227F and such basis should be provided for when the summary procedure order is made.
7 Jul 2006

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW996/2000

The court held that as a matter of statutory construction s196(2) and rule146(2) confer an unfettered discretion on the court and do not make the Official Receiver's percentage basis the default; consequently the court need not require special circumstances to adopt a time cost basis. As a matter of practice the court should adopt the time cost basis for remuneration of liquidators in summary s227F cases and provide for that basis when making a summary procedure order to ensure cost‑effective administration and viability of the Panel T Scheme.
7 Jul 2006

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW999/2001

The court held that s196(2) and rule 146(2) grant the court an unfettered discretion and that the percentage basis applicable to the Official Receiver is not the mandatory default; accordingly, as a matter of practice the time cost basis should be adopted for remuneration of liquidators in summary winding-up cases and should be provided for when a summary procedure order under s227F is made.
7 Jul 2006

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW365/2003

The court held that s196(2) and rule 146(2) afford the court an unfettered discretion as to the basis of liquidator remuneration in summary s227F cases, and that rule 146(2) does not impose the Official Receiver's percentage scale as the default. As a matter of practice the court will adopt the time cost basis as the standard for remuneration in summary winding-up cases and it is appropriate to provide for that basis when the summary procedure order is made; no special circumstances need be shown to depart from percentage basis.
7 Jul 2006

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1295/2002

The court held that s196(2) and rule 146(2) afford the court unfettered discretion and that the percentage basis applicable to the Official Receiver is not the default; as a matter of practice the time cost basis should be adopted for remuneration in summary winding-up cases and should be provided for when a summary procedure order under s227F is made.
7 Jul 2006

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW748/2001

The court held that s196(2) confers an unfettered discretion to fix liquidator remuneration in summary cases and that rule146(2) does not mandate the Official Receivers percentage scale as the default; as a matter of practice the time cost basis should be adopted and provided for when a summary procedure order under s227F is made, because this accords with the statutory purpose, practical realities of minimal realisations and the Panel T subsidy/tender framework.
7 Jul 2006

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

RE GOLDLORY RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW968/2001

The court holds that s196(2) grants an unfettered discretion to determine the basis of remuneration for liquidators in summary cases under s227F and that rule 146(2) does not impose a default percentage basis; as a matter of practice the time cost basis should be adopted and provided for at the making of a summary procedure order to reflect statutory purpose and practical realities.
20 Mar 2002

Re Sport Electronic Ltd.

Citation

Re Sport Electronic Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW401/1992

The charging order absolute on the property constituted an overlooked asset of the dissolved company; under section 290 the court has the power to declare the dissolution void and extend the two-year period to permit the liquidator to pursue the asset for the benefit of creditors, and on the facts (including available funding) the exercise of that discretion was appropriate despite delay.