Re Forever Best Engineering Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 322/2001 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 June 2001.
1. This is a petition presented in April this year. It is based upon a Labour Tribunal award which was made in June of last year. The amount referred to in the petition is a Labour Tribunal award of $25,000.00 odd dollars. However, the Company is also indebted to 12 other employees in the aggregate sum of nearly $300,000.00 together with interest at judgment rate from the date stated in the award until payment.
|
HCCW000322/2001 HCCW 322/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO. 322 OF 2001 ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Yuen J in Court Date of Hearing: 11 June 2001 Date of Judgment: 11 June 2001 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.This is a petition presented in April this year. It is based upon a Labour Tribunal award which was made in June of last year. The amount referred to in the petition is a Labour Tribunal award of $25,000.00 odd dollars. However, the Company is also indebted to 12 other employees in the aggregate sum of nearly $300,000.00 together with interest at judgment rate from the date stated in the award until payment. 2.The Labour Tribunal Award was made on an inter partes basis at which the Company admitted the claim of the Petitioner and the other employees at the Labour Tribunal hearing. No part of those awards have been paid by the Company. 3.A statutory demand was made against the Company in December 2000 and as I have said, in April of this year, the petition was presented. No affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Company. 4.When the matter went before the master on 6 June, two directors of the Company appeared, Mr Yung and Mr Young and they sought to oppose the petition on behalf of the Company. They were informed by the master on that occasion that they would either have to instruct legal advisors or have to apply to the Registrar for leave to represent the Company today. 5.This morning, Mr Yung and Mr Young appeared without having obtained the leave of the Registrar to represent the Company but I have heard what they have said, as it were, de bene esse. Mr Yung has said that the Company had not been able to pay the Petitioner and the other workers under the Labour Tribunal award and that the Company has no defence to those awards. Further he has indicated that the Company is not able to pay its debts as they have fallen due. However, it has an action against a third party which they wish to pursue. 6.It has not been indicated that liquidators, if appointed, would not be able to pursue that action if it is thought that that would increase the assets of the Company. 7.Although Mr Yung said that part of the Company's creditors would be willing to pay the workers off within one month, there is no evidence of that and there are no opposing creditors in this petition today. 8.Consequently, I take the view that what Mr Yung has told me do not comprise any or any sufficient grounds to give them leave to represent the Company because simply the Company has no merits to dispute this petition. Since this is a Labour Tribunal award made in June 2000, the Petitioner is entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding-up order because the debt is undisputed and the Company is admittedly insolvent. Consequently, I will make the usual winding-up order.
Representation: Ms Pauline Lo from Legal Aid Department, for the Petitioner Mr Y F Yung and Mr C Young asking for leave to act for the Company Mr A Chau from the Official Receiver's Office |