Chow Hon Leung Vincent v. Boken Ltd. and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCCW 212/1997 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 June 1997.

1. This is an unusual case. It is a petition for a winding-up under the just and equitable grounds with an alternative prayer for relief that the Respondents do buy the shares of the Petitioner.

Case No.HCCW 212/1997
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Jun 1997
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCW000212/1997

1997, CWU No. 212

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 212 OF 1997

____________

IN THE MATTER of Boken Limited

and

IN THE MATTER of ss. 168A and 177(1)(f) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32, the Laws of Hong Kong.

____________

BETWEEN
CHOW HON LEUNG VINCENT Petitioner
AND
BOKEN LIMITED

BOGA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

KAO CHEUNG CHONG, MICHAEL

1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

3rd Respondent

____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Rogers in Court

Date of hearing: 10 June 1997

Date of delivery of decision: 10 June 1997

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. This is an unusual case. It is a petition for a winding-up under the just and equitable grounds with an alternative prayer for relief that the Respondents do buy the shares of the Petitioner.

2. The strange part of this case is that the Respondents appear today by counsel and are prepared to consent to the Petitioner's primary prayer for relief, namely the winding-up. In those circumstances, I am distinctly unhappy about the further conduct of these proceedings but I do not feel that the matter has been fully argued today and am not prepared to make a final order on this although I will give leave for the matter to be brought back to this Court for further directions and further application when the parties have had a chance to research the matter fully. After such research as I have been able to do this morning and having reminded myself of some of the authorities, it seems to me clear that the Petitioner may have an advantage in bringing proceedings under Section 168A rather than leaving it to the company to take proceedings against potential wrongdoers.

3. In those circumstances, I propose to give directions that the Respondents do file evidence. It will be evidence on the whole petition but it will be on the basis of having today conceded that they are prepared to allow a winding-up order to be made. If the Petitioner does not succeed in obtaining any more than a winding-up order on the hearing of the Petition, it is very likely that the Petitioner will have to bear all the costs of the petition from today onwards.

4. I will hear the parties as to what orders as to the filing of evidence they need, bearing in mind that they may also wish to have the matter restored for further directions and argument on the procedural point.

(Anthony G. Rogers)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. Horace Wong inst'd by M/s Allen Chan & Co. for Petitioner

Mr. Winston Poon Q.C. inst'd by M/s. Baker & Mckenzie for Respondent

Mr. M.K. Tam for Official Receiver