Read the full judgment text of HCCW 368/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 26 May 2022 before Hon Cheng J.
Companies (winding-up) – leave to adduce late evidence – second affidavit in opposition – cross-claims – ulterior purpose – change of control – RHC O.32 r.11A(4) – exceptional circumstances – Parsad v Great Wealthy Engineering Co Ltd – probative value – delay – prejudice – RBF HK Limited sought leave to file a second affidavit (Adkins 2nd) covering cross-claims against the petitioner, allegations of ulterior purpose, and post-filing events including imminent change of control. The court held that the exceptional circumstances requirement under RHC O.32 r.11A(4) did not apply as the evidence was not sought in support of an interlocutory application. The applicable test was from Parsad v Great Wealthy Engineering Co Ltd, balancing the right to rely on relevant evidence against delay, prejudice, and the underlying objectives of Civil Justice Reform. The court found the evidence relevant and probative, with contemporaneous documentation supporting the cross-claim and specific matters supporting the ulterior purpose allegation. Although the application was late (one month before the substantive hearing), the petitioner had time to respond within 14 days and the hearing would not exceed the allocated one day. Leave granted to file Adkins 2nd and for the petitioner to respond within 14 days.
Legal issues: Leave to adduce late evidence in opposition to winding-up petition
Outcome: Leave granted to RBF to file the second affidavit (Adkins 2nd) in opposition to the winding-up petition; leave granted to the petitioner to file evidence in response within 14 days.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 5 cases