RE LIMITLESS CONCEPTS LTD

HCCW 62/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO 62 OF 2015

____________

____________

___________________

RULING
___________________

1.  I have before me a petition issued on 24 February 2015 seeking an order to wind up the company on the ground of insolvency. The petition was adjourned for hearing before me today by Master Lo in the normal way on 27 May. At that time, no evidence had been filed by the company setting out any grounds for contesting the petition, as it should have done by that stage, and no leave had been obtained by the sole shareholder and director of the company to represent it; the company at that stage not being represented by solicitors. As I understand it, having been told by Master Lo that he needed to make an application for leave to represent the company, its director Law Kam Sing applied on 28 May to Master Lai. Leave was granted. It would appear from the note on the file that the reason for granting it was that “if representation is not granted, company would not be able to argue its case before the judge which will render the adjournment direction meaningless”.

2.  The petitioner wishes to apply to have leave revoked.  It appears, although I should not be taken as deciding the matter, that by virtue of Order 5 Rule 6 (4) and (5) that application has to be made to a Master, this is because sub rule (4) says that no leave from an order of the Registrar granting or refusing leave can be appealed but sub rule (5) says that leave can be revoked.

3.  In China Northern Newenergy Investment Limited HCCW120/2014, I dealt with the principles by reference to which an application for leave should be determined.  It would appear from the file that in determining the application regard was not given to these principles.  Although it is a matter for the Master, I should say it does not seem to me that the fact the petition was adjourned on the normal Wednesday callover to the Companies Court Judge the following Monday is in itself capable of being a reason for granting leave to a director to represent the company.  More is necessary in my view.  I will therefore adjourn the petition for four weeks, I also order that by 5:00pm on 25 June 2015 the parties shall file the order that they will seek on 29 June 2015 with a brief explanations of why they seek that order.  Costs will be reserved.