Re Fortune Fountain Capital Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 78/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 July 2020.
1. I have before me a winding-up petition issued on 6 May 2020 by Allen & Overy. The debt which is relied on and in respect to which a statutory demand was served dated 12 April 2019, arises from an unpaid invoice dated 25 July 2018 for US$584,078.66. A number of payments have been made in respect of that invoice during the course of 2019; there is an unpaid outstanding balance of US$391,682.40.
|
HCCW 78/2020 [2020] HKCFI 1968 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 78 OF 2020 ________________
_______________ Before: Hon Harris J in Court Date of Hearing: 27 July 2020 Date of Decision: 27 July 2020 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ 1.I have before me a winding-up petition issued on 6 May 2020 by Allen & Overy. The debt which is relied on and in respect to which a statutory demand was served dated 12 April 2019, arises from an unpaid invoice dated 25 July 2018 for US$584,078.66. A number of payments have been made in respect of that invoice during the course of 2019; there is an unpaid outstanding balance of US$391,682.40. 2.The Petition was due to come on before me on the 20 July 2020, but was adjourned until today because of a short general adjournment arising from Covid-19. As at 20 July, no evidence had been filed by the Company in opposition and no application had been made to file evidence out of time. Ms Wong who appeared today on behalf of the Company sought leave to rely on an affirmation of a manager of the Company, Mr Wang Qiushi. 3.Although I did not give leave, I read the affirmation which self-evidently does not, explain in remotely convincing terms the failure of the Company to file evidence in opposition, setting out a bona fide defence on substantial grounds to the claim. Neither does it provide any convincing reason why such evidence could not have been filed by now, for example, Mr Wang said that the Company is disadvantaged because the relevant manager who is dealing with this matter left the Company’s employment in late 2019. However, there is no explanation of why, if the Company could not find relevant documentation, it did not approach Allen & Overy. 4.In the circumstances, it does not seem to me that there is any justification for granting leave to file substantive evidence in opposition, particularly as the Company says that it cannot provide any security for costs. I will, therefore, make the normal winding-up order.
Ms Jasmine Cheung, instructed by Allen & Overy, for the petitioner Ms Angel H Y Wong, instructed by Cham & Co, for the respondent Ms Cindy Li, instructed by Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver |