|
cacv 253/2007
in the high court of the
hong kong special administrative region
court of appeal
civil appeal no. 253 of 2007
(on appeal from HCCW NO. 49 of 2000)
______________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of KONG WAH HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of Section 221 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) |
BETWEEN
| |
THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS
OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LIMITED
(IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION)
|
Applicants |
| |
and |
|
| |
KIN YUEN (also known as |
Respondent |
| |
YUEN KIN, SAMUEL) |
|
______________________
AND
cacv 254/2007
in the high court of the
hong kong special administrative region
court of appeal
civil appeal no. 254 of 2007
(on appeal from HCCW NO. 50 of 2000)
______________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of Section 221 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) |
BETWEEN
| |
THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS
OF AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED
(IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) |
Applicants |
| |
and |
|
| |
KIN YUEN (also known as |
Respondent |
| |
YUEN KIN, SAMUEL) |
|
______________________
Before : Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court
Date of Hearing : 2 November 2007
Date of Judgment: 2 November 2007
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal has been brought on at short notice with the co-operation of the respondents, the liquidators, because the examination which was the subject of the proceedings is due to take place next week. We have considered the arguments which have been raised this morning. Effectively, there are no new arguments. We have dealt with the arguments in our judgment and, simply, there is very little more to be said. We do not consider that this is a matter of great general or public importance. We would emphasise that there is no absolute bar to the obtaining of legal advice. The provision is in the order that the applicant can apply to the person before whom the examination is being conducted to be able to obtain legal advice if he needs to. But, in other respects, we do not wish to say any more than is already in our judgment.
2. For these reasons, we would dismiss this application.
(Discussion re costs)
3. Application dismissed, with costs.
(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President |
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal |
Mr Rimsky Yuen SC, instructed by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, for the Applicants/Respondents
Mr Godfrey Lam, instructed by Messrs Baker & McKenzie, for the Respondent/Applicant
|