Eac Transportation Services (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Liu Chi Tat Stephen and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2934/2016 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 April 2017.

1. This is an application under section 290 of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32, for setting aside a dissolution order.

Case No.HCMP 2934/2016
Court
High Court CFI
Date20 Apr 2017
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 2934/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2934 OF 2016

____________

 

IN THE MATTER of EAC PROSPERITY LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE LIMITED

 

and

 

IN THE MATTER of SECTION 290 of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32

 

and

 

IN THE MATTER of the Order dated 4th August 2016 whereby the Company is dissolved

_____________

BETWEEN    
  EAC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (HONG KONG) LIMITED Applicant
  and  
  LIU CHI TAT STEPHEN 1st Respondent
  KWAN PAK KONG 2nd Respondent
  THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES 3rd Respondent

_____________

Before: Hon Au-Yeung J in Court
Date of Hearing: 20 April 2017
Date of Judgment: 20 April 2017

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.This is an application under section 290 of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32, for setting aside a dissolution order.

2.The dissolution was a voluntary one commenced by members’ resolution on 18 June 2014.  It fell within section 239(4) of Cap 32, in that the final account and the return of the holding of the meeting were filed with the Companies Registrar on 4 May 2016 and three months expired on 3 August 2016.

3.The present originating motion was issued on 1 November 2016 and hence within two years of the date of dissolution.

4.The applicant was a minority shareholder of the company, holding 30 per cent of the ordinary shares.  It claims that certain former directors of the company and a former majority shareholder were likely to have committed misfeasance and/or breaches of directors’ duties in relation to the company’s affairs.  Those former directors have allegedly, without proper authorisation, caused the company to enter into unfair agreements with EAC Prosperity Logistics Enterprises Limited and made secret profits to the detriment of the company.

5.Different views have been presented to the then joint liquidators as to whether or not to enter into litigation on that claim of the applicant.  Despite the liquidators giving time and proposal for litigation fund to be provided by the applicant, the applicant had not come up with a proposal acceptable to the liquidators.

6.The final meeting was concluded on 28 April 2016 and at that stage, the company was solvent.

7.The applicant wants the company to pursue the litigation against the directors and former majority shareholder with the litigation fund which it now says are ready to be provided by it.

8.The applicant is a person who appears to be interested within the meaning of section 290 of Cap 32.  The conditions in section 290 are all satisfied.  All the respondents take a neutral stance to this application.

9.I make an order along the lines suggested by the Companies Registrar as per the letter dated 12 April 2017.

  (Queeny Au-Yeung)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
  High Court

Ms Annie Yanan Bu, instructed by S C Chan & Co, for the applicant

The 1st and 2nd respondents were not represented and did not appear

Attendance of the Companies Registrar was excused