RE UNITED HONG KONG LTD. (Company Number: 478403)

HCCW 13/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO. 13 OF 2001

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. In this matter, the petition is based on an award from the Small Claims Tribunal. The award was for $30,000.00 and was made in June 2000. A statutory demand was served in December 2000 and the petition was presented in January 2001. The affirmation of the Petitioner (which is a firm of solicitors) was made verifying the petition in January 2001.

2. There have been filed in court two affirmations of Mr Man Yuen Sing, a director of the Company. Basically, the Company says that the Petitioner firm of solicitors had been negligent in the performance of its duties as solicitors, and it is further said that the Bill of Costs was incorrect. However, it is important to note that the Small Claims Tribunal award has not been set aside. Apparently, what had happened was that the Company had appealed the award to To DHCJ who had held that Miss Lun, the adjudicator, had acted correctly when entering judgment against the Company. Miss Lun was acting upon an unless order given by Miss Au Yeung, another Small Claims Tribunal adjudicator. Consequently, To DHCJ advised the Company to revert to Miss Au Yeung in relation to the unless order which she gave. This, apparently, the Company did.

3. However, on 4 December 2000 the Registrar of the Small Claims Tribunal wrote to the Company as follows:

"Thank you for your letter of 23 November 2000. Section 27A of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, Cap. 338 provides that an application for review by a party should be made within 7 days from the date of an award or order. The order which you wish to review was made on 28 April 2000. Hence, it has been a long time [here I would add in parentheses: 8 months] since the period set down for review expired. This tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to review this order.

Moreover, your application for leave to appeal in these 2 claims were refused by To DHCJ on 6 September 2000. Under Section 28(3) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance Cap. 338 a "refusal by the court of first instance to grant leave to appeal shall be final." There is nothing this Tribunal can do with these two claims."

And there it would appear, the matter ended.

4. The petition was presented as I have said in January 2001. According to Mr Man of the Company, there were attempts made by the Company for a compromise of the situation although that is not set out in the evidence before me.

5. What has transpired is that, apparently, about a week ago Mr Man wrote to the Tribunal again seeking, it would appear, to change its mind in relation to the position which the Tribunal had set out in the letter of 4 December 2000 that I have referred to earlier. It seems to me that it is far too late for Mr Man to do anything about it.

6. The Small Claims Tribunal award having stood notwithstanding an appeal to To DHCJ, the Petitioner is entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding-up order unless the Company manages to persuade me that there is any reason why in the exercise of my discretion the winding-up order should not be made.

7. It is the Company's case that it has recently started miscellaneous proceedings against the firm and it was argued that the winding-up should be adjourned pending the resolution of these miscellaneous proceedings.

8. It seems to me that the matter should have been ventilated properly at the Small Claims Tribunal. The Company having failed in its challenge to the Petitioner's claim in the Small Claims Tribunal, I see nothing which causes me to exercise my discretion against the making of a winding-up order which, as I have said, should follow ex debito justitiae from a judgment debt.

9. Accordingly, I would reject the Company's applications and I will make the usual winding-up order.