Re Pointer & Dent Co Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCCW 142/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 March 2021.

1. The present petition was last before me in September 2020 resulting in its adjournment until today for the reasons contained in my decision dated 12 November 2020. As can be seen from those reasons, the petition was adjourned in order to allow it to be amended to address the issue explained in the decision.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCCW 142/2020[2021] HKCFI 573
Court
High Court CFI
Date01 Mar 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCW 142/2020

[2021] HKCFI 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 142 OF 2020

_______________

 

IN THE MATTER OF The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32)

 

and

 

IN THE MATTER OF Pointer & Dent Company Limited

_______________

Before: Hon Harris J in Court

Date of Hearing: 1 March 2021

Date of Decision: 1 March 2021

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________


1.The present petition was last before me in September 2020 resulting in its adjournment until today for the reasons contained in my decision dated 12 November 2020. As can be seen from those reasons, the petition was adjourned in order to allow it to be amended to address the issue explained in the decision.

2.In short, that was to make it clear that the principle basis upon which a winding-up order was sought, namely, non-repayment of subscription sums which had been paid by the Petitioners to the Company was claimed on the basis on a restitutionary right to recover it as the offer to subscribe for the shares represented by those payments had never been accepted.

3.I have before me a summons to formally amend the petition which I will allow and order that the costs be costs in the petition. As matters transpired the Company’s solicitors have come off the record and the Company has not attended to continue to oppose the petition.  In the circumstances it seems to me that the correct course is to make the normal winding-up order on the basis that no defence has been demonstrated to the revised claim for recovery of the subscription monies, however, the amended petition will need to be formally verified.

4.I will, therefore, make an order that (1) the petition be amended in the form of the draft appended to the summons dated 27 January 2021; (2) an affirmation verifying the amendments be filed by 4:30pm on 5 March 2021; (3) the winding-up of the Company be pronounced in court on Monday 8 March 2021 and the attendance of the parties be dispensed with.

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

Mr James Wood, instructed by Tanner De Witt, for the 1st and 2nd petitioners and the intended petitioner (David Alexander Walder)

The company was not represented and did not appear

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

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCCW 142/2020