Akai Holdings Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. Ernst & Young (A Hong Kong Firm)
Read the full judgment text of CACV 255/2008 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 May 2009.
1. We have decided that section 357 of Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 applies to an overseas company which is registered under Part XI of the Ordinance. The plaintiff wishes leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. One basis for leave is that our decision involves a question of great general or public importance. On the material before us, it is clear that there are many companies in Hong Kong which may be affected by our decision. That being the case, I believe this is an appropriate cas
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 255/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCL NO. 29 OF 2004) ----------------------
---------------------- Before: Hon Tang VP, Yuen JA and Chung J in Court Date of Hearing: 20 May 2009 Date of Decision: 20 May 2009 ---------------------- DECISION ---------------------- Hon Tang VP (giving the decision of the Court): 1.We have decided that section 357 of Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 applies to an overseas company which is registered under Part XI of the Ordinance. The plaintiff wishes leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. One basis for leave is that our decision involves a question of great general or public importance. On the material before us, it is clear that there are many companies in Hong Kong which may be affected by our decision. That being the case, I believe this is an appropriate case for leave to be given. 2.We were concerned that the effect of leave being given may mean that the trial which is set to commence in September 2009 with an estimated length of 6 months would be aborted. We were told that the giving of leave by us would not have that effect. If it were otherwise, this is a case where we might exercise our discretion to decline leave, leaving it to the parties to go to the Court of Final Appeal for leave. But as it is, we are gratified to hear that leave would not mean the abortion of the trial. 3.Costs of this application be in the cause of the appeal. Usual security to be provided.
Mr. Leslie Kosmin, QC, and Mr. Charles Manzoni, instructed by Messrs Lovells, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Clifford Smith, SC, instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the Defendant. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 255/2008