|
HCCW 410/2019
[2021] HKCFI 3695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 410 OF 2019
________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of Grand Peace Group Holdings Limited |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong |
________________
Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 3 December 2021
Date of Decision: 3 December 2021
________________
D E C I S I O N
________________
1. On 24 August 2021 I dismissed an application by Chan Tsik Yan to be substituted as Petitioner. I delivered detailed reasons for that decision, the contents of which I do not need to repeat.
2. In dismissing that application I ordered that the Petition be listed for hearing on 30 August 2021. At that hearing the Petition was adjourned until today in order to consider further how the Petition should be dealt with in the light of the progress of a proposed restructuring of the Company’s debt by Scheme of Arrangement.
3. At the hearing before me today, the Company has asked for the Petition to be dismissed. That would, of course, have been the normal consequence of my decision to dismiss the substitution application for the reasons explained in my earlier decision. Both the Petitioner and Mr Chan Tsik Yan have asked for the Petition to be adjourned pending the hearing of Mr Chan’s appeal which I gave him leave to commence on 9 November 2021.
4. Before me there was some discussion as to the implications of the present slightly unusual circumstances in which the Petitioner has demonstrated no enthusiasm for pursuing his petition since it was issued in December 2019, the Company has not previously pressed for a dismissal and the prospective appeal by Mr Chan. I do not think is necessary to explore that question. I will adjourn the Petition for dismissal on 6 December 2021 before Companies Judge. If the Petitioner appeals that decision, I anticipate the appeal would be heard with Mr Chan’s appeal which would probably determine its outcome. In other words an appeal of my decision to dismiss the Petition should not be involve any substantive work.
5. If the Petitioner is not prepared to issue an appeal, then Mr Chan will have to consider whether or not there is an argument available to him that since he is a member of the class whose rights the original Petitioner was seeking to protect and advance, he has sufficient locus to prosecute the appeal on behalf of the class.
6. I make no comments as to the merits of that argument. It is agreed that there be no order as to costs of the Petition of this hearing.
|
(Jonathan Harris)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Miss Jenny Zhang, instructed by Francis Kong & Co, for the petitioner
Mr Look Chan Ho, instructed by WT Law Offices, for the company
Mr Lai Chun Ho, instructed by Oldham, Li & Nie, for the supporting creditors (Chen Shuxia, Chan Tsik Yan, Zuo Lin, Yim Shui Kei, Tse Ha Ming, Luo Xiaodan, Lochih Ming, Leung Siu Ho, Ji Jie, Mao Ying Zi, Cheung Pak Hoi, Cheung Ming Chu, Cheung Hui Wang, Chan Nga Shan, Leung Ka Shun & Leung Sze Man)
Attendance of Cedric & Co, for the supporting creditor (Sun Fung Capital Limited) was excused
Attendance of Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong, for the supporting creditor (Yuen Man Kai) was excused
Haldanes, for the supporting creditor (Yu Chi Wing), did not appear
Attendance of Au Yeung, Chan & Ho, for the supporting creditor (Cheung Yuet Lai Hettie) was excused
Attendance of Patrick Chu, Conti Wong Lawyers LLP, for the supporting creditor (Suen Lai Ling) was excused
The attendance of the Official Receiver was excused
|