Re China Sunergy (Hongkong) Co Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCCW 175/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 October 2018.

1. On 26 June 2018 the petitioner issued a petition for the winding up of the Company on the grounds of insolvency. The petition has come on before the court on a number of occasions. The last hearing took place before Mr Justice Anthony Chan on 15 October 2018. The judge adjourned the petition in order to give the Company the opportunity to reach terms of settlement with the petitioner. Mr Justice Chan expressly stated that this was the Company’s last opportunity to resolve the matter and that

Case No.HCCW 175/2018[2018] HKCFI 2399
Court
High Court CFI
Date22 Oct 2018
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCW 175/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 175 OF 2018

________________

  IN THE MATTER of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong
  and
  IN THE MATTER of China Sunergy (HongKong) Co., Limited ( 中電電氣光伏集團有限公司 )

________________

Before: Hon Harris J in Court
Date of Hearing: 22 October 2018
Date of Decision: 22 October 2018

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.On 26 June 2018 the petitioner issued a petition for the winding up of the Company on the grounds of insolvency. The petition has come on before the court on a number of occasions. The last hearing took place before Mr Justice Anthony Chan on 15 October 2018. The judge adjourned the petition in order to give the Company the opportunity to reach terms of settlement with the petitioner. Mr Justice Chan expressly stated that this was the Company’s last opportunity to resolve the matter and that this should be impressed upon the Company.

2.An agreement has not been reached with the petitioner.  No evidence in opposition has been filed.  The Company was represented, I use the term “loosely”, by Ms Chan, a solicitor with the Company’s solicitors, who has no rights of audience.  Ms Chan argued that the Company wished to oppose the petition, although it has filed no evidence.

3.In the circumstances it seems to me that there is no reason not to make the normal winding-up order which I do.  The Official Receiver’s costs in the sum of $8,900 be paid out of the petitioner’s deposit and the balance repaid to the petitioner.

 
 

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

Mr Moses Park, instructed by F Zimmern & Co, for the petitioner

Jimmie K S Wong & Partners, for the Company

Mr William Tse, instructed by the Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver