Re Allied Weli Development Ltd (Formerly Known As Hennabun Capital Group Ltd)
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 337/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 February 2016.
1. I have before me a petition to wind up the Company on the ground of insolvency. The Company was incorporated in British Virgin Islands on 6 March 1996. The only defence asserted by the Company is that the court should not exercise its discretion to wind up the Company because the matters relied on as demonstrating a substantial connection with Hong Kong, whilst being capable of constituting a substantial connection, appear on the face of the petition to have occurred between about 2012 and 20
Cites 1 case
|
HCCW 337/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO 337 OF 2015 _________________
_________________
_________________ D E C I S I O N _________________ 1.I have before me a petition to wind up the Company on the ground of insolvency. The Company was incorporated in British Virgin Islands on 6 March 1996. The only defence asserted by the Company is that the court should not exercise its discretion to wind up the Company because the matters relied on as demonstrating a substantial connection with Hong Kong, whilst being capable of constituting a substantial connection, appear on the face of the petition to have occurred between about 2012 and 2014. Mr Kim, who appeared for the Company argues that it is necessary to show a current connection with Hong Kong and the matters relied on being historical in nature are not capable of doing so. 2.It seems to me clear that there is no substance to this point. I'm satisfied that the contents of the petition justify the court exercising its discretion to wind up the Company on the grounds of insolvency so that its affairs can be thoroughly investigated. It doesn't seem to me the fact that the matters which are relied on by the petitioner as demonstrating sufficient connection with Hong Kong may have ceased at about the time the petitioner commenced the proceedings that led to the judgment on which the petitioner relies to prove insolvency necessarily means there is insufficient connection between the Company and Hong Kong to justify this court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to wind the company up. What is necessary is for the petitioner to demonstrate that there is sufficient connection to justify a winding-up at the time the petition is heard. Precisely when the matters giving rise to a connection occurred is in itself irrelevant. 3.I will make the normal winding up order. The costs up to 25 January shall be taxed on a party and party basis and thereafter on an indemnity basis.
Ms Rachel Lam, instructed by Linklaters, for the petitioner Mr Minju Kim, instructed by Lam & Co, for the respondent Ms Sharon Ng, instructed by the Official Receiver |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCW 337/2015