Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMP004146C/2001

HCMP 4146/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4146 OF 2001

____________

IN THE MATTER of CHIME CORPORATION LIMITED

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32

____________

BETWEEN
	TAN MAN KOU and CHEUNG YAT MING in their capacity as the Joint Administrators Pendente Lite of the Estate of WANG TEH HUEI (by Orders of the Court dated 15 March 2000 and 26 March 2001)	Petitioners

	AND

	CHIME CORPORATION LIMITED	1st Respondent
	NINA KUNG alias NINA T H WANG	2nd Respondent
	KUNG YAN SUM (formerly known as GONG XIAN XIN)	3rd Respondent
	FORUM EVER LIMITED	4th Respondent
	FOCUS PROFIT LIMITED	5th Respondent
	LIU YUAN CHUN	6th Respondent
	JOSEPH WING KONG LEUNG	7th Respondent
	CHAN KAM POR	8th Respondent
	KWOK KI LI	9th Respondent

____________

Coram: Hon Kwan J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 11 November 2003

Date of Decision: 11 November 2003

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.These are the orders I make on the 2nd respondent's application:

(1) the period for the setting up of the account by the 2nd respondent pursuant to paragraph 1 of my order dated 31 October 2003 be extended to 13 November 2003; and

(2) the costs of this application be to the petitioners in any event.

2.I have not acceded to the submission of the 2nd respondent in giving the 2nd respondent the costs of today, having taken into account the following matters.

3.Firstly, the 2nd respondent is coming to court seeking an indulgence.

4.Secondly, the parties have tried but are unable to resolve this application by consent. I have looked at the correspondence exchanged between them. I cannot say the joint administrators have been at fault in not responding to the letters of the 2nd respondent's solicitors in a timely way.

5.Thirdly, as for the undertaking insisted on by the joint administrators and which the 2nd respondent is unwilling to give, I can see some justification for the joint administrators' lack of confidence in the 2nd respondent's ability to comply with the order. The 2nd respondent first sought seven days' extension, then five days, and given the history of the whole matter, I do not think the joint administrators have been unreasonable in asking for the undertaking, although I did not require an undertaking from the 2nd respondent in the end.

6.For the above reasons, I give the costs of today to the petitioners as well.

7.I also make an order that the costs of the petitioners be taxed on a trustee basis and be paid out of the estate.