Re Hoover Eternity Ltd

HCCW 329/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO. 329 OF 2005

____________

____________

Before: Hon Kwan J in Court

Date of Hearing: 19 June 2006

Date of Judgment: 19 June 2006

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.This petition was presented by Lo Wing Kwong & Lau Heung Wa trading as Hsin Pao Frozen Foods (Bun Kee) to wind up Hoover Eternity Limited (“the Company”).

2.The petition was founded on a default judgment obtained by the petitioner against the Company in DCCJ No. 148 of 2005.  The amount of the judgment debt is HK$180,350.30.  Having obtained a default judgment, the petitioner served a demand on the Company under section 178(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 on 7 April 2005.

3.The Company filed its evidence in opposition in these proceedings on 30 June 2005, alleging that the default judgment should be set aside on the basis of irregularity and that the Company has a meritorious defence.

4.On the same day, the Company also filed evidence in the District Court in support of its application to set aside the default judgment on both limbs.  Judgment was given by Deputy District Judge A Kot on 8 June 2006.  The Company’s argument that the default judgment was irregular was rejected, but it succeeded on the basis that its defence should have a real prospect of success, and judgment was set aside on that ground.

5.This petition was adjourned by an order made on 4 July 2005, pending the determination of the Company’s application to set aside the default judgment.

6.At the hearing today, counsel for the petitioner did not oppose the Company’s application to dismiss the petition, but sought costs of the petition to be borne by the Company, on the basis that the petitioner had obtained a regular judgment and was entitled to seek payment from the Company based on the regular judgment.

7.As I have mentioned, the Company’s contention that the judgment was irregular was rejected in the District Court.  It seems to me that the Company should pay the petitioner’s costs up to and including the hearing on 4 July 2005.

8.I would make no order as to the petitioner’s costs of today.  The Official Receiver’s costs of $6,500.00 are to be borne by the petitioner and be deducted from the petitioner’s deposit.

Miss Catrina Lam, instructed by Messrs Li, Wong & Lam, for the Petitioner

Ms Sara Tong, instructed by Messrs Kok & Ha, for the Company

Miss Vivian Yeung, for the Official Receiver