Lim Hang Young v. L&A International Holdings Ltd and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCCW 169/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 November 2017.

1. On 6 June 2017 the petitioner, Lim Hang Young, issued a petition seeking a winding-up order against the 1 st respondent (“ Company ”), which is listed on the GEM Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, and the 2 nd respondent, the majority shareholder of the Company. In short, serious mismanagement is alleged.

Case No.HCCW 169/2017
Court
High Court CFI
Date14 Nov 2017
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCW 169/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING‑UP PROCEEDINGS NO 169 OF 2017

___________________

  IN THE MATTER of L&A International Holdings Limited
  and
  IN THE MATTER of section 327(3)(c) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32

___________________

BETWEEN
  LIM HANG YOUNG Petitioner
  and
  L&A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED 1st Respondent
  YANG’S HOLDINGS CAPITAL LIMITED 2nd Respondent

___________________

Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 14 November 2017
Date of Decision: 14 November 2017

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.On 6 June 2017 the petitioner, Lim Hang Young, issued a petition seeking a winding-up order against the 1st respondent (“Company”), which is listed on the GEM Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, and the 2nd respondent, the majority shareholder of the Company. In short, serious mismanagement is alleged.

2.The petitioner, who is Korean, did not appear on the first hearing of the petition and has not appeared today on the hearing of a summons issued on 16 August 2017 seeking an order striking out the petition against both respondents. 

3.The summons and evidence were served at the petitioner’s address as it appears in the petition.

4.I will strike out the petition and make an order that the petitioner pays the 1st and 2nd respondents’ costs.  In my view, given the petitioner’s complete inactivity following presentation of petition, it is appropriate that those costs be assessed on an indemnity basis which I so order.

5.I note that the Companies Court has had a series of petitions to deal with in the last couple of years which involve Korean petitioners issuing similar petitions to wind up small listed companies on the grounds of misconduct.  It is unclear what their motivation is, but it might be prudent for this to be brought to the attention of the Securities and Futures Commission in order that they can ensure that it does not involve any market manipulation.

  (Jonathan Harris)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

The petitioner was not represented and did not appear

Mr Joseph Wong, instructed by Khoo & Co, for the 1st respondent

Mr Kung Kin Chung, instructed by Lam & Co, for the 2nd respondent

Attendance of the Official Receiver was excused