Yip Wai Kwok Gabriel v. Hong Kong Society of Congenital & Structural Heart Disease Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1541/2016 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 September 2016.
1. This is an application by the plaintiff (“Dr Yip”) under ss.431 and 610 of the Companies Ordinance, Cap 622 (“Ordinance”) for extension of time to allow: (a) the defendant (“Company”) to hold its AGMs [1] for the years 2012 to 2015; and (b) the Company’s directors to lay at those AGMs the reporting documents [2] for the financial years ended 31 March 2012 to 31 March 2015.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases
|
HCMP 1541/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1541 OF 2016 ______________________
______________________ BETWEEN
______________________
_________________________________ R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N _________________________________ 1.This is an application by the plaintiff (“Dr Yip”) under ss.431 and 610 of the Companies Ordinance, Cap 622 (“Ordinance”) for extension of time to allow: (a) the defendant (“Company”) to hold its AGMs[1] for the years 2012 to 2015; and (b) the Company’s directors to lay at those AGMs the reporting documents[2] for the financial years ended 31 March 2012 to 31 March 2015. 2.The merits of this application are reasonably plain. The Company is a charitable organisation with the aim to promote, maintain and pursue excellence in the care of patients with congenital or structural heart decease. It is limited by guarantee, and is exempted from tax under s.88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, Cap 112. 3.Dr Yip is a cardiologist and the President of the Council which manages the business of the Company. It appears that all the Council members are volunteers. 4.The failure to hold an AGM, and concomitantly to lay the requisite documents before the Company in AGM, for the years in question was caused by an erroneous belief on the part of the Council members that such obligations did not apply to the Company once it became exempted from tax. 5.I am prepared to accept that it was an inadvertent mistake given the circumstances of this case. In particular, all the Council members were volunteers and none had any legal training. I am also satisfied on the evidence that none of the Company’s members has suffered any prejudice as a result of the non-compliances, and that there is no risk of future non-compliance. Thus, the requirements for granting relief are satisfied: see Re Sanliuyidu (Hong Kong) Sports Goods Co Ltd [2009] 4 HKLRD 708, §5. 6.As a consequence of the irregularities in question, the Company’s bank account has been frozen by its bank, and it is in danger of losing the banking service. There is therefore good reason for the court to exercise its discretion in this case. 7.There are interesting legal issues concerning the transition between the old Companies Ordinance, Cap 32 (“Predecessor Ordinance”) and the Ordinance. 8.The duties to hold AGM and to lay the requisite documents at the AGM were governed by respectively s.111 and s.122[3] of the Predecessor Ordinance. These obligations are governed by ss.610 and 429 of the Ordinance since the 3 March 2014. 9.In respect of the transition between s.122 and s.429, the issues have been explored and dealt with in Re Bamboos Professional Nursing Services Ltd [2014] 3 HKLRD 51. 10.As regards the transition between s.111 and s.610, I have been referred to Re Pioneer Industries (Holdings) Ltd [2015] 1 HKLRD 1. It was a case which concerned both s.610 of the Ordinance and s.122 of the Predecessor Ordinance (see para 1 of the judgment). However, the court made no distinction between the 2 obligations and dealt with them collectively in para 8 of the judgment as follows :
11.There is a tension between Re Bamboos Professional Nursing Services Ltd and Re Pioneer Industries (Holdings) Ltd in that in the earlier case it was held that the transition between the old and new statutory provisions (s.122 and s.429) are as follows :
12.Although it is not clear from the judgment of Re Pioneer Industries (Holdings) Ltd which financial year was involved in that case in respect of the s.122 obligation, it appears from the terms of para 8 of the judgment that it was a case which fell within either category (a) or (b) (more likely the former) as identified in the preceding paragraph. However, Re Bamboos Professional Nursing Services Ltd was not referred to the court. 13.For extension of time for holding AGM, under s.107(5) of Schedule 11 infringements under the old and new provisions are treated in the same manner, as long as there is no application made for relief under s.111(2) of the Predecessor Ordinance :
14.It appears that the court in Re Pioneer Industries (Holdings) Ltd was relying upon s.107(5) in granting relief. However, those provisions do not apply to any breach of s.122. Relief for infringement of s.122 is governed by s.122(1B) of the Predecessor Ordinance. 15.Mr Lok, appearing for Dr Yip, had valiantly tried to reconcile the 2 authorities by suggesting that where an application is made pursuant to s.610 of the Ordinance for extension of time to hold an AGM, the court has the power under s.610(7)(b) to “give any ancillary or consequential directions”, and an extension of time for the laying of financial documents may be granted as an ancillary or consequential direction. 16.I am unable to agree with Mr Lok because: (a) it appears from s.610(7)(b)(i) and (ii) that the ancillary or consequential directions are concerned with the conduct of the AGM; and (b) such a construction tends to undermine the importance of s.122 or s.429 and nullify the specific transitional provisions discussed in Re Bamboos Professional Nursing Services Ltd. 17.Turning to the present case, Mr Lok had in his further supplemental skeleton submissions dated 25 July 2016 withdrawn his application in respect of 2015. 18.In respect of the extension of time to allow the Company to hold its AGMs for 2012 to 2014, I agree with Re Pioneer Industries (Holdings) Ltd. This court is vested with the power to grant relief by reason of the combined effect of s.107(5) of Schedule 11 and s.610(7) and (8) of the Ordinance. 19.As regards the extension of time for laying the income and expenditure accounts (s.122(1) of the Predecessor Ordinance) and the balance sheets (s.122(2)), s.23 of Cap 1 would apply in respect of the financial years ended 31 March 2012 and 31 March 2013. Section 122(1B) would continue to apply to those financial documents for the year ended 31 March 2014 by virtue of s.78 of Schedule 11. 20.However, there is another complication. Under s.122(1A) of the Predecessor Ordinance, the financial documents are required to be made up to a date, in this case, not more than 9 months before the date of AGM. In respect of the financial years ended 31 March 2012 and 2013, this requirement would not present any problem because of the continuous application of s.122(1B). Different consideration applies for the financial year ended 31 March 2014. 21.In respect of that financial year, s.78(2) and (3) of Schedule 11 impacts upon the date to which the financial documents are to be made up to :
22.According to s.78(2), paragraph (b) of s.122(1B) does not apply to the financial year in question (this gives rise to different treatment between the 2012 and 2013 financial years and 2014). Section 122(1B)(b) contains the power of the court to extend the period of 9 months referred to in s.122(1A). In substitution of such power, s.78(3) provides that the financial documents are to be made up to the Company’s “primary accounting reference date” (“PARD”) under s.369(1)(b) of the Ordinance. I therefore need to turn to those provisions to work out the PARD. Unfortunately, those provisions are highly complicated. 23.Section 369(1)(b) provides as follows :
24.Section 369(1)(b)(i) and (ii) are not applicable because, in this case, no accounts were prepared on or before the date required to hold a general meeting under s.111 of the Predecessor Ordinance having a continuing effect under Schedule 11. 25.For completeness, the difference between s.369(1)(b)(i) and 369(1)(b)(ii) appears to be the date to which the accounts (if prepared) are made up to. By virtue of s.369(2), s.369(1)(b)(i) “does not apply if those accounts are made up to a date falling more than one day before the [Commencement Date]”. 26.To comply with s.369(1)(b)(iii), one needs to work out the date by which the Company is required by s.111(1) of the Predecessor Ordinance to hold a general meeting. The relevant evidence is as follows :
27.In the premises, the financial documents to be laid at the 2014 AGM should be made up to 31 December 2014 pursuant to s.78(3) of Schedule 11. 28.For these reasons, I allowed this application and made an order at the end of the hearing on 31 August 2016 as follows :
29.Last but not least, I am grateful to Mr Lok for his able assistance.
Mr Michael Lok, instructed by Ho & Ip, for the plaintiff The defendant was not represented and did not appear [1] Annual General Meetings. [2] Defined in s.357(2) of the Ordinance to include the financial statements, the directors’ report and auditor’s report. [3] The requisite documents in this case under the Predecessor Ordinance are the income and expenditure account and balance sheet. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case