|
HCCW504/2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS
NO. 504 OF 2005
____________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of FANSWAY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (豐和國際有限公司) (the “Company”)
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER of Section 168A of the Companies Ordinance (Cap.32) (“Ordinance”)
|
| |
IN THE MATTER of Section 177(1)(f) of the Ordinance
|
-----------------------
BETWEEN
| |
LEUNG CHI TUNG |
Petitioner |
|
and
|
| |
AU YEUNG FAN
also known as FAN AO IEONG |
1st Respondent |
| |
WONG KA MAN |
2nd Respondent |
| |
FANSWAY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED |
3rd Respondent |
| ____________________ |
Before: Hon Harris J in Court
Date of Hearing: 30 September 2011
Date of Judgment: 30 September 2011
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
1. The order that I made on 14 October 2010 for the appointment of Sum, Arthur & Co. specifically refers to that firm being appointed at the joint valuer of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent. This was because that was what was asked for in the Petitioner’s summons of 1 September 2010.
2. The 2nd Respondent had not attended court on 14 October 2010 and it appears that that hearing proceeded on the basis that he was absent, although Mr Chan suggested to me today that his solicitors, which were the same as the 1st Respondent’s solicitors, were still on the record.
3. What appears to be sought today by the Petitioner is an order which states clearly what the value of the Petitioner’s shares are and also an order that money held by the Petitioner’s solicitors as stakeholders can be released to the Petitioner.
4. I do not have any difficulty making an order dealing with the valuation of the shares as between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent, but it seems to me that having quite specifically restricted what was sought on 14 October to the 1st Respondent, it would be inappropriate for me to now produce an order which referred to both Respondents. The Petitioner will have to consider what, if anything, is appropriate for them to do in respect of the 2nd Respondent. It does not, however, seem to me that this prevents me from making an order that the Petitioner’s solicitors may release the money they hold as stakeholder to their client.
5. I will, therefore, make the following order.:
(1) That the value of the Petitioner’s shares as between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent determined pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment of Recorder A Ho, SC, dated 30 May 2007, and the order of Harris J dated 14 October 2010 is RMB18,888,761.84.
(2) The Petitioner’s solicitors may release to the Petitioner the sums held by them as stakeholder pursuant to the order of Deputy Judge To of 9 July 2009.
(3) The costs of this application be paid by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to the Petitioner, to be taxed if not agreed.
(Submissions by counsel on interest)
(4) Application adjourned sine die.
(5) No order as to costs of today.
|
(Jonathan R Harris)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr Maurice J Chan, instructed by Messrs Chak & Associates, for the Petitioner
Messrs Ivan Tang & Co., for the 1st Respondent, absent
2nd Respondent, in person, present
|