Re Ice (Asia) Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 184/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 December 2020.
1. I have before me a petition issued on 23 June 2020 seeking an order for the winding-up of the Company on the grounds of insolvency. In order to prove insolvency, the Petitioner relied on a statutory demand served on 20 May 2020. The alleged debt arises from two purchase orders placed by the Petitioner with the Company, which have not been satisfied in full. The Petitioner seeks repayment of over US$140,000 representing the value of those goods ordered but not delivered.
|
HCCW 184/2020 [2020] HKCFI 3097 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING‑UP PROCEEDINGS NO 184 OF 2020 ________________
________________ Before: Hon Harris J in Court Date of Hearing: 14 December 2020 Date of Decision: 14 December 2020 ________________ D E C I S I O N ________________ 1.I have before me a petition issued on 23 June 2020 seeking an order for the winding-up of the Company on the grounds of insolvency. In order to prove insolvency, the Petitioner relied on a statutory demand served on 20 May 2020. The alleged debt arises from two purchase orders placed by the Petitioner with the Company, which have not been satisfied in full. The Petitioner seeks repayment of over US$140,000 representing the value of those goods ordered but not delivered. 2.The Company has filed evidence in opposition. It is, however, difficult to identify from that evidence what the alleged defence to the Petitioner’s claim can sensibly be. In summary, it appears to be suggested that the Petitioner through the purchase orders that it had historically placed with the Company, generated approximately 90% of the Company’s business. It seems to be suggested in the evidence that at some unspecified point in time a combination of the late payment on occasions of some of the instalments under the purchase orders by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner approaching factories in Mainland China engaged by the Company to fulfill the purchase orders, constituted some unlawful interference in the Company’s business and that the Company has a counterclaim arising from the interference which it is entitled to rely on to defeat the claims for repayment of sums paid under the two purchase orders which would seems to me cannot, be disputed. 3.However, the evidence does not come remotely close to substantiating any possible claim. Based on the matters referred to in the affirmation, there is no contract identified which it is suggested by the Company has been interfered with. In short, it seems to me that the Company has self-evidently failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, I will, therefore, make the normal winding up order.
Mr Harprabdeep Singh, instructed by Katherine Chan Law Office, for the petitioner Mr Wong Hok Yan, instructed by Ravenscroft & Schmierer, for the respondent Mr Raymond Kong, instructed by Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver |