Daniel Isaac Henri Mimoun and Others v. Dragon Concept HK Ltd and Others

HCCW 434/2012

[2018] HKCFI 492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING‑UP PROCEEDINGS NO 434 OF 2012

________________

________________

________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.On 14 December 2012, I made an order ex parte for the appointment of provisional liquidators over the Company. On 19 March 2013, I discharged that order. I dealt with certain of the costs of the proceedings until that date.

2.On 23 August 2013, I made a further order which addressed an application by the 2^nd respondent that there be an inquiry into the damages caused to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents by the continuation of the appointment of the provisional liquidators for the period from 2 January 2013 to 1 March 2013.  The 2^nd respondent has brought that application on before me today.  The petitioners have not attended. 

3.The only damages that are sought today are the provisional liquidators’ costs and disbursements for the period from 2 January 2013 to 1 March 2013.  I ordered in my earlier order of 19 March 2013 that the costs of the proceedings during this period be borne by the petitioners, as I accepted that at least from 2 January 2013 it was no longer necessary for there to be provisional liquidators given certain undertakings that had been offered by the 2^nd respondent. Essentially what I am being asked to do today is, for the same reasons, to direct that the costs that had been incurred to the Company, the order appointing the provisional liquidators providing as is normal that in the first instance the provisional liquidators’ costs and disbursements be paid out of the assets of the Company, now be paid by the petitioners. It seems to me that that is the correct order to make in the circumstances and I will so order.

4.So far as the costs of today’s application are concerned, it necessarily follows that the petitioners should pay the 2^nd respondent’s costs. It seems to me that as the petitioners have made no effort to agree an order, and the 2^nd respondent being put to the what should have been unnecessary time and expense of preparing what might have been a contested application, those costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis.

Mr Richard Healy, of Oldham, Li & Nie, for the 2^nd respondent

The 1^st petitioner was not represented and did not appear

The 2^nd petitioner was not represented and did not appear

The 3^rd petitioner was not represented and did not appear