|
HCCW 285/2019
[2020] HKCFI 2537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 285 OF 2019
_______________
| |
IN THE MATTER OF China Technology Corporation Limited （中科興業有限公司） |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER OF the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Chapter 32 |
_______________
Before: Hon Harris J in Court
Date of Hearing: 21 September 2020
Date of Decision: 21 September 2020
_______________
D E C I S I O N
_______________
1. I have before me a petition to wind up the Company on the grounds of insolvency. The Petitioner relies on a judgment dated 22 August 2019 for almost HK$4,000,000. The action that led to the judgment is based on three dishonoured cheques. The judgment was entered in default of defence being filed in the District Court.
2. The Company applied by a summons dated 18 November 2019 for an order that the judgment be set aside. The application was dismissed by Master Maurice Lam on 31 July 2020. On 17 August 2020, the Defendant issued a notice of appeal which is fixed for what would appear to be a call over on 12 November 2020.
3. It is clear from Master Lam’s decision that he did not think that there was a credible defence to the Petitioner’s claim. No application has been made to stay the judgment. I asked counsel for the Company, which opposes the Petition on the grounds, that it has a bona fide defence on substantial grounds whether the Company was able to make a payment into court in return for the petition being adjourned until after the appeal.
4. I am told that the Company is unable to do so. The Petition relies on an unsatisfied statutory demand. It follows that it is for the Company to demonstrate that it has a bona fide defence on substantial grounds to a petition which the non-payment of the statutory demand prima facie demonstrates the Company to be insolvency.
5. It seems to me that, in the circumstances, where judgment has been obtained, the merits of the defence considered and dismissed by the court and no stay of the judgment obtained then it is appropriate to make a winding up order unless security is provided in respect of at least a realistic proportion of the debt. As the Company is unable to make such an offer, I will make the normal winding up order.
|
(Jonathan Harris)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr Tommy Cheung, instructed by Bobby Tse & Co, for the petitioner
Mr Winson Yung, instructed by Lim & Lok, for the respondent
Ms Cindy Li, instructed by Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver
|