Re Kan Lap Kee (also known as “Terry Kan”)

HCMP 2529/2025

[2026] HKCFI 367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2529 OF 2025

__________________

__________________

__________________

_________________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________________

I.  INTRODUCTION

1.By an Ex-Parte Originating Summons filed on 19 December 2025 (the “Ex-Parte Originating Summons”) with the margin note stating the statutory provisions to be sections 168D and 168G of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (the “CWUMPO”), the Applicant seeks:-

“Leave be granted for the Applicant to file an affidavit in proceedings HCB 3819 of 2011 proceedings in his capacity as a former Joint and Several Liquidator of Siu-Fung Ceramics Holdings Limited, NHD Systems (Holdings) Limited, NHD Systems (Asia) Limited, Siu-Fung Ceramics Concept Company Limited and Siu Fung Concept Limited in response to an Inter Partes Summons taken out on 8 July 2025, which was subsequently amended and filed on 15 September 2025.”

II.  HISTORY

2.The Applicant was one of the two joint and several liquidators of the companies (the “Companies”) named in the relief sought in the Ex-Parte Originating Summons. On 8 March 2022, by a judgment handed down by DHCJ Leung (as he then was) in HCMP 2320/2020 ([2022] HKCFI 651), he was found to have been in contempt of Court in respect of his misconduct as a liquidator of some other company.

3.On 29 May 2025, the Applicant resigned as one of the joint and several liquidators of the Companies with immediate effect.

4.Subsequently, on 6 June 2025, in HCMP 1754/2024, upon the Official Receiver’s application for a disqualification order under section 168G of the CWUMPO made in reliance on the misconduct, Master J Wong granted the following order (the “DQ Order”):-

“The Respondent shall not, without leave of the Court,

(a) be a director of a company;

(b) be a provisional liquidator or liquidator of a company;

(c) be a receiver or manager of a company’s property; or

(d) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a company, for a period of 5 years.  This Order shall take effect on 27 June 2025.”

5.On 23 June 2025, in HCB 3819/2011, the trustees-in-bankruptcy of the bankrupt therein (the “Trustees”) filed and served an Inter-Partes Summons (subsequently amended on 15 September 2025) (the “HCB Summons”) for a disclosure order of certain documents of the Companies, naming the Applicant and the other joint and several liquidators of the Companies as the 3^rd Respondent.

6.The long and short thereafter is that the Applicant repeatedly informed the Trustees that he is no longer a liquidator of the Companies and so he should not be joined. However, the Trustees take the position that the Applicant is still in a position to answer the HCB Summons, and to the Applicant’s understanding (rightly or wrongly), the Trustees insist that the Applicant can file evidence in relation to the HCB Summons only in his capacity as one of the joint and several liquidators of the Companies.

III.  ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION

7.By the Ex-Parte Originating Summons, the Applicant thinks that he is applying under section 168D for limited leave so that he would be able to file affirmations in response to the HCB Summons.

8.The present application is, in my view, totally misconceived.

9.First, if there is any need for the Applicant to file any affirmation in response to the HCB Summons (and I am not expressing any view on the need, if any), he could file the same stating clearly that he is not doing so as any liquidator and if necessary, can also exhibit a copy of the DQ Order to avoid any accusation that in filing the affirmation under the name of the 3^rd Respondent, he would act in breach of the DQ Order. Even if I assume that somehow the Trustees would take a position that the Applicant can file evidence in relation to the HCB Summons only in his capacity as one of the joint and several liquidators of the Companies, this does not mean that the Applicant will have to dance to the Trustees’ tune. The Trustees may have misunderstanding or may have simply taken an erroneous position. What the Applicant should do is simply to explain the situation, and it is for the Court there to decide the merits and demerits.

10.Second, if necessary (and I am not expressing any view on this), the Applicant may certainly apply to join in his own personal capacity the HCB Summons as an interested party or an additional respondent to avoid any accusation that in filing the affirmation under the name of the 3^rd Respondent, he would act in breach of the DQ Order.

11.Third, if leave under section 168D would be required (and I am not expressing any view whether leave is really required for the purpose of responding to the HCB Summons), the Applicant would have to make an application in HCMP 1754/2024 under the “without leave of the Court” in the DQ Order for leave, but should not commence fresh proceedings like the present proceedings.

12.Fourth, even assuming that the Applicant could commence fresh proceedings for the present application, the Official Receiver should be joined as a respondent, given that the Official Receiver applied for and obtained the DQ Order.

13.In the circumstances, I see no reason why the Applicant has to commence fresh proceedings as he now has and in any event, commencing fresh proceedings ex-partes is without basis.

IV.  CONCLUSION

14.For the above reasons, I dismiss the Ex-Parte Originating Summons with no order as to costs.

Mr Davyd Wong, of YTL LLP, for the Applicant