|
HCCW 355/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO 355 OF 2014
____________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of KEEN LLOYD ENERGY LIMITED (建萊能源有限公司) (formerly known as KEEN LLOYD INVESTMENTS LIMITED)
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) of the Laws of Hong Kong
|
____________________
| Before: Hon Harris J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: 9 February 2015 |
| Date of Decision: 9 February 2015 |
_______________
D E C I S I O N
_______________
1. On 28 May 2013, Ng J gave judgment in favour of the petitioner against the company for HK$564,896,223.78 and interest and costs. That sum was not paid and a statutory demand was served on the company on 23 October 2014. The demand was not complied with in whole or part and the winding-up petition which is before me was issued on 25 November 2014.
2. No evidence in opposition has been filed by the company. Mr Ko, who appeared today before me on behalf of the company, sought a short adjournment to file evidence in opposition. As I have explained in previous authorities, the winding-up rules require a company to file evidence in opposition to a petition within a week of the affidavit proving the petition having been filed. As I cannot think of many things which have a more serious impact on a company than the presentation of the winding-up petition, it seems to me that it is clearly incumbent upon the directors of a company to take a petition seriously, to instruct lawyers promptly and to ensure that any opposition they are able sensibly to advance to it, or any grounds for asking the court to adjourn it, are presented in plenty of time for both the petitioner and the court to consider .
3. In the current case, there appears to be no suggestion that the company can, in fact, pay the judgment debt in the short term. Presumably, if there was something serious to be said in opposition to the petition, given the lengthy period in which the company has had the opportunity to say it, it would by now be available.
4. In the circumstances, I can see no reason not simply to make the normal winding-up order, which I shall.
|
(Jonathan Harris)
|
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court |
Mr Anthony Chan, instructed by Deacons, for the petitioner
Mr Tony Ko, instructed by Ho Tse Wai, Philip Li & Partners, for the respondent
Mr Alan Ho, instructed by the Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver
|