|
cacv 306/2005 AND CACV 307/2005
in the high court of the
hong kong special administrative region
court of appeal
civil appeal no S. 306 of 2005 AND 307 OF 2005
(on appeal from HCCW NOS. 49 of 2000 AND 50 OF 2000)
HCCW 49/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG special administrative region
court of first instance
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) 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 |
______________________
BETWEEN
| |
THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LIMITED
(In Compulsory Liquidation) |
Applicants |
| |
and |
|
| |
THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LIMITED |
1st Respondent |
| |
THE GRANDE GROUP LIMITED |
2nd Respondent |
| |
THE GRANDE (NOMINEES) LIMITED |
3rd Respondent |
| |
OMNICORP LIMITED |
4th Respondent |
| |
HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER |
5th Respondent |
| |
RUBY LEE YEN KEE |
6th Respondent |
| |
SHERYL SIMMONS |
7th Respondent |
HCCW 50/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG special administrative region
court of first instance
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) 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 |
______________________
BETWEEN
| |
THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF
AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED
(In Compulsory Liquidation)
|
Applicants |
| |
and |
|
| |
THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LIMITED |
1st Respondent |
| |
THE GRANDE GROUP LIMITED |
2nd Respondent |
| |
THE GRANDE (NOMINEES) LIMITED |
3rd Respondent |
| |
OMNICORP LIMITED |
4th Respondent |
| |
HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER |
5th Respondent |
| |
RUBY LEE YEN KEE |
6th Respondent |
| |
SHERYL SIMMONS |
7th Respondent |
Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court
Date of Hearing: 24 May 2006
Date of Handing Down Judgment: 2 June 2006
______________________
C O R R I G E N D A
______________________
Please note the following amendments in the Judgment handed down on 2 June 2006:
At line E of paragraph 10 on page 6, the sentence
“Since this court was at pains to try to limit the documents required to documents of the companies, the suggestion that there would be any prejudice to the applicants by reason of disclosure of any such documents must fail.”
should read
“Since this court was at pains to try to limit the documents required to documents relating to the companies (see paragraph 27 of the judgment dated 26 April 2006), the suggestion that there would be any prejudice to the applicants by reason of the disclosure of any such documents must fail.”
Dated this 20th day of June 2006.
| |
(Kitty Leung)
Clerk to Hon Rogers VP |
|