Re Pacific Ocean Marine Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCCW 51/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 September 2021.

1. I have before me a petition issued in January 2021 seeking an order winding up the Company on the grounds of insolvency. The Company has not opposed the petition, however, a shareholder of the Company wishes to do so.

Case No.HCCW 51/2021[2021] HKCFI 2812
Court
High Court CFI
Date13 Sep 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCW 51/2021

[2021] HKCFI 2812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 51 OF 2021

________________

  IN THE MATTER of Pacific Ocean Marine Limited
 

and

  IN THE MATTER of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32)

________________

Before: Hon Harris J in Court

Date of Hearing: 13 September 2021

Date of Decision: 13 September 2021

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.I have before me a petition issued in January 2021 seeking an order winding up the Company on the grounds of insolvency. The Company has not opposed the petition, however, a shareholder of the Company wishes to do so.

2.On 1 June 2021 an affirmation was filed by Li Hoi Kwong, the shareholder, Wan Zhangqing, exhibiting a draft affirmation of Mr Wan purporting to set out the reasons why he wishes the opportunity to oppose the petition.  That affirmation has never been formalised and the draft that is exhibited does not include the exhibits referred to in it.

3.I gave Mr Ho, who appeared on Mr Wan’s behalf, the opportunity to hand up the most relevant of the documents referred to which as it transpired was a one-page Chinese language document, which I understand to constitute some form of assignment.  However, Mr Wan’s evidence does not explain how the matters he refers to constitute a defence to the Petitioner’s claim.  Mr Wan has had nine months to put together evidence to explain why he has doubts about the veracity of the loan relied on by the Petitioner, and he has failed to do so.  I have not been told what any further evidence he might file, would say that calls into question, the veracity of the loan.  It seems to me that I should make the normal winding up order as no bona fide defence on substantial grounds has been shown and there is no reason to think that one will be if Mr Wan is given more time.

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

Mr Dan Leung, instructed by Jimmie K S Wong & Partners, for the petition

Mr Ho Chi Chun, instructed by Li & Associates, for the opposing contributory

Mr Raymond Kong, instructed by Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver

The Company was not represented and did not appear