RE HONG KONG CONSTRUCTION (WORKS) LTD.

HCCW 670/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 670 OF 2002

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. I have before me a petition to wind-up Hong Kong Construction Works Ltd ("the Company") presented by a creditor on the ground that the Company is unable to pay its debts. I do not propose to set out the details of the petitioning debt and the grounds raised by the Company in opposition to the petition, as I have dealt with these matters in full in a decision I handed down on 7 January 2003, on an application taken out by the Company to strike out the petition on the ground that there is a bona fide dispute of the petitioning debt on substantial grounds. I have dismissed that application for the reasons given in my decision. I find that there is no bona fide dispute of the petitioning debt and in respect of the cross claims raised by the Company in the sum of over HK$10 million, I have found that only part of the cross claims may be of any substance and that is far less than the petitioning debt.

2. The petition and the summons to strike out came before me on 23 September 2002 when I gave directions that the application to strike out was to be adjourned for argument and that the petition was to be adjourned pending the determination of the strike out application. I did so because of the indication given by counsel for the Company that the Company might wish to file evidence on its solvency which was not before the court and because of the estimate he gave for the length of hearing of the petition.

3. In the end, notwithstanding that the Company had been given opportunity to do so, the Company has not filed any evidence as to its solvency. The only matter raised by Mr Lam, who appeared for the Company today, is to seek an adjournment of the petition pending an appeal of the Company against my decision refusing the application to strike out the petition. I gather that a Notice of Appeal has been lodged by the Company on 10 January 2003.

4. I see no good reason for adjourning the petition in these circumstances. As no new ground has been raised by the Company to oppose the winding-up petition, I make an order to wind up the Company. I further order that the petitioner's costs are to be paid out of the assets of the Company.