Re Soo & Edmund Co. Ltd.

HCCW35/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO.35 OF 2000

-------------------

-----------------------

R E A S O N S

-----------------------

1. This is a creditor's petition based on an unpaid judgment debt in the sum of US$67,200. The judgment was a default judgment entered against the Company on 12 August 1999.

2. The first hearing of the petition took place on 27 March 2000. At that hearing, the Company was represented by its director Lau Chi Wing who appeared to challenge the merits of the judgment obtained against the Company. The petition was adjourned for seven days to enable the Company to apply for leave to set the judgment aside out of time. The procedure was explained to Mr Lau and it was made plain to him that if no such steps were taken prior to 3 April 2000, the petition would be heard.

3. The Company did not make the application. Rather, it filed an affirmation in opposition to the petition. Mr Lau was not able to explain why that was done instead.

4. The Company's position appeared to be that it never received notice of the proceedings as a result of which it did not attend the hearing culminating in the default judgment. The Company was given an opportunity to make an application for leave to set the judgment aside out of time. As no valid explanation has been given for its inaction, little purpose would be served in granting any further adjournments. Further, the summons which cumulated in the default judgment was served on the Company at its then registered office. The change in registered office did not occur until some 21/2 weeks after the service of the summons in the High Court action. A sealed copy of the judgment was then served at the new registered office on 1 September 1999.

5. The Company could not but have been aware of the judgment having regard to the fact that the statutory demand and the petition had been served on the Company at its registered office. No steps had been taken to set aside the judgment. The Company was effectively given a fresh chance last week. It chose not to avail itself of that opportunity. Accordingly, there is no valid reason for the court to exercise its discretion to grant any further indulgence.

6. Accordingly, a winding-up order was made.