RE THL MARKETING CO LTD

HCCW 1307/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 1307 OF 2003

____________

____________

AND

HCCW 1308/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 1308 OF 2003

____________

____________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1.  These two petitions are ordered to be heard together.  They were both presented by the Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, as the successor corporation to Sin Hua Bank Limited (“Sin Hua Bank”).

2.  The petition against THL Marketing Company Limited is for a debt of HK$484,654.02 and US$1,780,590.35, being the balance of a judgment debt due to Sin Hua Bank under an order made in HCMP No. 2783 of 1998 dated 22 September 1998.  The petition against THL (Holdings) Company Limited is for a debt of HK$532,343.93 and US$1,781,243.40, being the balance of a judgment debt due under a final and interlocutory judgment dated 29 October 1998 in HCA No. 10596 of 1998.

3.  A demand for each of the petitioning debts was served on the respective companies on 9 August 2003.  The petitions were presented on 25 November 2003.

4.  The petitions were adjourned on several occasions from January 2004, due to the opposition of the companies.  Directions were given for the companies and the petitioner to file evidence and there was at one stage a summons for specific discovery taken out by the companies which was disposed of in August 2004.  The petitions were ordered to be set down for argument and they were due to be heard on 13 May 2005.

5.  On 23 March 2005, the petitioners’ solicitors received a letter from the companies’ solicitors stating that the companies have agreed not to contest the winding-up proceedings.

6.  On 15 April 2005, the companies’ solicitors further wrote to the court seeking leave to withdraw its opposition to the winding-up proceedings.  I am informed by counsel appearing for the companies today that the companies would also withdraw the evidence filed in opposition.

7.  That being the case as there is now no dispute of the petitioning debts, I make a winding-up order against each of the companies.  The petitioner’s costs would be paid out of the assets of each of the companies concerned.