佛山市順德區金鳳製衣有限公司 v. First Dragon Fashion (Hong Kong) Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCW 41/2010 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 February 2011.
1. In this petition, the Petitioner seeks an order to have the Respondent (the “Company”) wound up pursuant to section 177(1)(d) and (f) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts and on the just and equitable ground.
Cited by 7 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
HCCW 41/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING UP PROCEEDINGS NO. 41 OF 2010 ____________
Before: Hon To J in Court Date of Hearing: 2 December 2010 Date of Judgment: 14 February 2011 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Introduction 1.In this petition, the Petitioner seeks an order to have the Respondent (the “Company”) wound up pursuant to section 177(1)(d) and (f) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32 on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts and on the just and equitable ground. Background 2.The Petitioner is a garment manufacturer in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). The Company is a company incorporated in Hong Kong under the Companies Ordinance. 3.Under an oral arrangement, the Petitioner manufactured garments for the Company using materials supplied by the Company. Between 2003 and 2006, the Petitioner carried out work and services for the Company for which processing fee in the sum of HK$1,006,980.50 was due but unpaid. 4.On 13 July 2006, the Petitioner commenced legal proceedings in the Foshan Municipal Intermediate People’s Court in Guangdong Province (廣東省佛山市中級人民法院) (“Foshan Intermediate Court”) to recover the said sum and applied for a freezing order for preservation of the materials belonging to the Company, which were in the possession of the Petitioner pending the outcome of that action (財產保全申請). On 25 July 2006, the Foshan Intermediate Court ordered the materials to be sealed (查封) and detained (the “Freezing Order”). An inventory of the seized materials was recorded by the court bailiffs on 4 August 2006 detained in the Petitioner’s factory (the “Seized Materials”). 5.In that action, the Company raised various defence and counterclaims, such as late delivery, short delivery and sub-standard quality. On 13 December 2007, the Foshan Intermediate Court substantially rejected the Company’s defence. It entered judgment with interest in favour of the Petitioner in the sum of RMB1,006,980.50, instead of in Hong Kong currency, and dismissed the Company’s counterclaims (the “PRC judgment”). It also ordered the Company to pay the judgment sum with interest within ten days and the Petitioner to return the Seized Materials to the Company also within ten days, i.e. on or before 23 December 2007. On 3 November 2008, the Foshan Intermediate Court issued a corrigendum amending the judgment sum to Hong Kong currency. The Petitioner received the corrigendum on 4 November 2008. 6.The Company appealed to the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province (廣東省高級人民法院) (“Guangdong High Court”) against the PRC judgment, but the appeal was dismissed on 29 November 2008. Neither party alerted the court of the corrigendum issued by the Foshan Intermediate Court and the Guangdong High Court upheld the judgment sum in Reminbi. It was only until 26 September 2010 that the Guangdong High Court issued its own corrigendum about the currency. 7.The Company did not pay the PRC judgment debt. Neither did the Petitioner return the Seized Materials. On 10 April 2009, the Petitioner applied to the Foshan Intermediate Court to execute on the Seized Materials. On 30 July 2009, the Seized Materials were valued at RMB113,385 by 佛山大誠房地產土地估價與資產評估有限公司 (Foshan Da Zheng Real Estate and Property Valuer Company Limited) (“Da Zheng Valuers”), a valuer appointed by the court. On 30 June 2009, the Foshan Intermediate Court verified the Seized Materials and confirmed that they tallied with the inventory taken on 4 August 2006 was correct. On 2 December 2009, the court made an order vesting the proprietary and related rights, including the right of sale, over the Seized Materials in the Petitioner. The Seized Materials were sold in an auction conducted by 佛山市三水立德拍賣有限公司 (Foshan City Sam Shui Li De Auctioneer Company Limited) (“Li De Auctioneers”) for RMB157,000. The sum of RMB142,566 net of cost of the auction was paid over to the Petitioner. As at 30 December 2009, the total sum of HK$844,047.93 exclusive of interest was payable to the Petitioner. 8.On 30 December 2009, the Petitioner’s solicitors served on the Company a demand for payment of the said sum of RMB1,063,192.40 or the Hong Kong currency equivalent (the “petitioning debt”). The Company did not pay. On 22 January 2010, the Petitioner commenced winding up proceedings against the Company. The Company opposed the petition. 9.On 21 October 2010, the Company applied to the Foshan Intermediate Court to set aside the execution order. The supporting documents were filed with the court on 18 November 2010. But, as at the date of hearing before me, the application has not been served on the Petitioner. The parties’ case 10.The above factual background is not in dispute. The PRC judgment is not registrable under section 5 of the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance, Cap. 597, and is not directly enforceable in Hong Kong. The petition is based on two grounds: firstly, that the Company is insolvent being unable to pay its debts as they fall due and, secondly, that it is just and equitable that the Company be wound up. The second ground is also based on the insolvency of the Company. Thus, as correctly submitted by Mr Chong, counsel for the Company, there is just one ground, i.e. the alleged inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due. 11.Though the Company’s manager, Fong, said in his opposing affirmation that the Company was not liable for the petitioning debt because the Company had counterclaims against the Petitioner for sub-standard quality, late delivery and short delivery, Mr Chong does not seek to dispute the petitioning debt. Indeed, there could be no bona fide dispute about the petitioning debt because in the proceedings before the Foshan Intermediate Court the Company admitted liability for the processing fee and the PRC judgment was entered against it on that basis, while its counterclaims were dismissed by the court. 12.The Company’s ground for contesting the petition is that it has an equitable set off against the Petitioner, which would extinguish the entirety of the petitioning debt and that the Company is solvent. The basis of its equitable set off are: (1) that in the PRC proceedings, the Petitioner was ordered to return the Seized Materials within ten days of the judgment, which the Petitioner never did in contempt of the court; (2) that the Seized Materials, being customs protected goods, were not liable to execution; and (3) that there were irregularities in the execution and auctioning process of the Seized Materials. The alleged irregularities in the execution were that the execution was for a judgment debt in the wrong currency and that service of the notice of execution was defective. The alleged irregularities in the auctioning process were that the Seized Materials were subject to protection by the Customs Department of the PRC and not liable to execution; the service of the valuation report of the Seized Materials was defective; and there was a substantial discrepancy in the quantity of the Seized Materials held by the Petitioner under the Freezing Order and that valued by Da Zheng Valuers and auctioned by Li De Auctioneers. The most important sting of the Company’s case is that as a result of the irregularities and unlawful execution of the PRC judgment, it was deprived of the Seized Materials which had a value exceeding the petitioning debt by a wide margin. According to Fong, the value of the Seized Materials was HK$1,302,577. But Mr Chong suggested an alternative valuation of HK$2,363,033.78. The applicable legal principles 13.The legal principles applicable to winding up of a company on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts are well settled. Winding up proceedings are not intended for the purpose of debt collection. A winding up order has serious consequences on a company. The most obvious one is the freezing of its bank accounts which undoubtedly would disrupt the day-to-day affairs of the company and adversely affect its goodwill and operation. The jurisdiction is a summary one and will only be exercised in very clear cases. The test which the court applies is whether the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds or if the debt is not so disputed, whether the company has a bona fide counterclaim or set off exceeding the debt. If satisfied that it is the case, as a matter of practice, the companies court will not embark on a trial to determine the issue of the validity of the debt, counterclaim or set off, but will dismiss the petition. 14.Where the company disputes a debt or raises a counterclaim or set off, the onus is on the company to adduce sufficiently precise factual evidence to satisfy the court that it has a bona fide dispute of the debt or has a genuine counterclaim or set off. A bona fide dispute is not a trivial or insubstantial dispute but is one based on solid grounds disputable both in law and on the facts of the case. As recognized by Rogers J, as he then was, in Re ICS Computer Distribution Limited, [1996] 3 HKC 440 at 443C-444A, this is a higher standard than that required of a defendant in resisting an application under Order 14 rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court. His Lordship held at 444:
Thus, the burden is on thecompany to show not only that its set off is believable but also that there is precise factual evidence in support of that set off, not just mere assertions. The court will look at the company’s evidence against so much of the background and incontrovertible evidence that is not disputed or not capable of being disputed. An honest belief that it has a substantial ground of defence is not sufficient to avoid a winding up order: Re Hong Kong Construction (Works) Limited, HCCW 670/2002. 15.In a winding up based on insolvency ground, a petitioner may invoke the deeming provision under section 178 of the Companies Ordinance, if the company failed to pay a debt within three weeks of a statutory demand. But this presumption is rebuttable. A statutory demand is merely a means of proof of insolvency but is not a sine qua non for the success of a petition on the ground of insolvency. The court would not order the winding up of a company unless it is satisfied that the company is in fact insolvent: Bozell Asia (Holding) Ltd and CAL International Ltd & Another [1997] 1 HKLRD 1 and Re IJ Langleb Ltd [1996] 4 HKC 68. 16.Non payment of the debt in the absence of a bona fide dispute of the debt on substantial ground or of a bona fide counterclaim or set off is very strong evidence on which the inference of insolvency could be raised: Re United Strength Ltd [1992] 1 HKC 386; Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114 adopted in An Feng International Trading Ltd v Honour Link International Development Ltd [1999] 3 HKC 116. This is particularly so where there is no evidence showing the company’s liabilities: An Feng International Trading Limited v Honour Link International Development Ltd. 17.Moreover, the fact that the full amount of the statutory demand may not be proved to be owing does not invalidate a demand or render the company involved any less insolvent so long as a debt which exceeded the statutory limit is due and admitted or not bona fide disputed: Bozell Asia (Holding) Ltd and Cardiff Preserved Coal and Coke Company v Norton (1867) LR 2 Ch App 405 at 410. The rationale in the latter case was adopted by Kwan J, as she then was, in 有關華廈傢具城有限公司(清盤中)的事宜, HCCW 229/2007. 18.With these principles in mind, I now turn to consider the equitable set off relied on by the Company. Expert opinion on PRC law 19.Both parties adduced expert evidence on PRC law to support their case. The Petitioner’s expert, Yeung, filed two affirmations. The Company’s expert, Chiang, filed four. Yeung and Chiang are both practising lawyers in the PRC and are qualified to give expert evidence on PRC law. However, with respect to both of them, the quality of their evidence fell below the standard of expert evidence that this Court has been accustomed to. Their evidence was nothing but assertions of their opinion supported by a few articles of some relevant PRC statutes. The full texts of the statutes they relied on were not annexed to their opinion. In many instances, the full title of the PRC statutes quoted by Chiang were obviously incomplete, such as《海關法》and《拍賣管理辦法》. The status of the statutes in the legislation hierarchy is not known. Though the principle of stare decisis is unknown to the PRC legal system, it is common for examples of court decisions and opinions from academics to be provided to reinforce the expert opinion. But no authorities were quoted. Yeung’s opinion was particularly flimsy. I give no weight to his legal opinion. 20.On 22 November 2010, the Company gave notice to cross examine Yeung. However, the Petitioner did not make Yeung available for cross examination due to the short notice. Mr Lam, counsel for the Petitioner, said that such notice should have been given at the two direction hearings on 17 May 2010 or 16 November 2010 and that the late notice would only result in delay of the action. Mr Chong agreed not to cross examine Yeung. In any event, as I am not going to give any weight to Yeung’s expert opinion, the cross examination or lack of it was unlikely to have any effect on the outcome of this petition. 21.Chiang, I regret to say, was a typical hire gun. He took part in the preparation of the Company’s case by lodging complaints of the Petitioner’s tax evasion activities by reporting the auction of the Seized Materials to the Customs Departments of Shunde and Guangzhou. He traversed into the factual arena at will and misrepresented that the auditor performing the stock taking exercise on behalf of the Company was an accountant appointed by the Hong Kong Government to give that stock taking exercise credibility. He also totally ignored the fact that since the stock taking exercise, the materials had been turned into garments and delivered to the Company. Not only that, he asserted without supporting evidence that as a result of the sale of the Seized Materials the Company’s loss far exceeded the petitioning debt. He gave the opinion that the Company’s claim for the Seized Materials in the amount of HK$1,302,577 would be acceptable to the PRC court when both the Foshan Intermediate Court and the Guangdong High Court had dismissed the Company’s counterclaims. In addition to giving his opinion on facts, he also volunteered opinion on Hong Kong law. I reject such of his evidence. On the other hand, he was supposed to give very important expert opinion that the Company’s application to set aside the execution order had been accepted (立案) by the Foshan Intermediate Court, but he just shied away without giving such opinion and left it to Fong, a layman, to give such legal expert evidence in his 11th affirmation, which Fong was not qualified to give. I also give no weight to his expert opinion except where it is not disputed by Yeung. But I would take into account the factual evidence he gave in respect of the Company’s case and weigh that evidence against the totality of the evidence. Under the circumstances of this petition, resolution of factual dispute is sufficient to dispose of the petition without the need of resorting to PRC law. The issues 22.The issues raised by this petition are:
23.The petitioning debt is not disputed. The Company’s defence is that it has an equitable set off against the Petitioner exceeding the petitioning debt. The basis of the claim for set off is that instead of returning the Seized Materials to the Company pursuant to the order of the Foshan Intermediate Court, the Petitioner in contempt of the court executed on the Seized Materials and caused them to be sold at an undervalue. The major thrust of the Company’s defence is that as a result of the unlawful sale, it was deprived of the Seized Materials and suffered loss exceeding the petitioning debt. The secondary thrust is that the execution order will be set aside because of irregularities in the execution of the PRC judgment and in the auctioning process. 24.Much has been submitted by Mr Chong about those irregularities. If there were no irregularities, the auction had been properly carried out by due process of the law of the PRC. The Petitioner would have a complete defence to any claim for loss and damages suffered by the Company as a result of the auction of the Seized Materials. The Company could not have any claim for set off against the Petitioner, however big the quantum. On the other hand, if there were irregularities, the Company may have a claim for set off. The next question then is whether that set off would exceed the petitioning debt. Thus, the value of the Seized Materials is at the heart of the first issue. 25.The burden of proof is on the Company to prove the set off and irregularities. The irregularities have to be determined on the basis of PRC law and procedure. In view of the rather flimsy expert evidence on PRC law, I prefer to investigate the quantum of the set off first, which is basically a question of fact. If the quantum is insubstantial, that will basically dispose of the Company’s objection, without the need to make any finding on PRC law. I shall commence with the valuation of the Seized Materials. 26.As for the second issue, the Petitioner’s case is based on presumption under section 178(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance. The Company denies it is insolvent. This is a factual dispute which will have to be resolved by inference to be drawn from all the circumstances. Valuation of the Seized Materials by Da Zheng Valuers 27.The Seized Materials were valued by Da Zheng Valuers appointed by the Foshan Intermediate Court by drawing ballot from a pool of qualified valuers. Da Zheng Valuers conducted a stock taking exercise and found that the Seized Materials comprised of the following:
28.In paragraph 28 of his written submission, Mr Chong argues that the Petitioner’s allegation that there had been a substantial reduction in the quantity of fabrics was traversed by the finding of the Foshan Intermediate Court that as at the date of the seizure on 4 August 2006 there were not less than 46,000 yards/metres of fabric kept by the Petitioner at its factory and as at the stock check by the court bailiffs on 30 June 2009 there were only about 43,000 yards/metres. With respect, what Mr Chong was driving at was incomprehensible. He made a hue and cry that 3,000 yards/metres of fabric had not been accounted for. But it is clear firstly that he was not even sure about the unit of measurements used and secondly that the deficit was the result of his own creation by adding measurements in yards in respect of one lot fabrics to measurements in metres in respect of another lot of fabrics. One yard equals 0.9144 metres. When the measurements in yards were converted into metres, the measurements by the court bailiffs on 4 August 2006 and 30 June 2009 and by Da Zheng Valuers tallied. There could be no substance in Mr Chong’s suggestion of misappropriation of the fabrics by the Petitioner. 29.There is nothing to suggest that Da Zheng Valuers was related to the Petitioner or otherwise acted improperly. It used the usual valuation methods to value the Seized Materials. The methodology of the valuation was not challenged by the Company. Da Zheng Valuers valued the Seized Materials to be worth RMB113,385. The Seized Materials fetched a price of RMB157,000 in the auction. There was bound to be a discount for forced sale, usually of between 30 to 40%. Thus, the market value of the Seized Materials would be in the region of RMB241,000. This is consistent with the guarantee of RMB300,000 offered by the Petitioner to and accepted by the Foshan Intermediate Court when applying for the Freezing Order. For the purpose of this petition, the precise valuation of the Seized Materials is not important. What is important is whether the valuation is likely to exceed the petitioning debt. On the basis of the above evidence, it is not. Valuation of the Seized Materials by the Company: the quantum of the claim for set off 30.The value of the Company’s claim for set off is based on the value of the Seized Materials which the Petitioner was ordered by the Foshan Intermediate Court to return to the Company within ten days of the PRC judgment. The Company relied on two valuations, one by its manager Fong who valued the Seized Materials at HK$1,302,577 and the other by Mr Chong who gave a valuation of HK$2,363,033.78. 31.Fong’s valuation of HK$1,302,577 was based on a letter dated 12 January 2010 prepared by the Company’s accountant Messrs Wong Hon Sang & Co. The letter referred to a stock taking exercise conducted on 30 June 2005. It reads:
Fong said that due to price increases in the materials market the Company had to incur about HK$1,580,000 to purchase replacement materials. But he produced no supporting invoice that a quotation for the equivalent quantity of materials had been obtained or receipt that such replacement materials had indeed been purchased. It should also be noted that this valuation was based on a stock taking exercise conducted a year before the seizure by the Foshan Intermediate Court. 32.In Zhao’s 2nd affirmation filed on behalf of the Petitioner, while not disputing the stock taking exercise and valuation by the Company’s accountant, Zhao explained that since the stock taking exercise on 30 June 2005, the materials had been turned into 25,908 pieces of garments between 4 July 2005 and 21 September 2005 and the stock was accordingly diminished. She exhibited details of the deliveries, which presumably were the garments in respect of which the Petitioner sued for processing fee in Foshan Intermediate Court. The deliveries were not disputed by the Company. Zhao’s account is therefore credible and supported by documentary evidence. Thus, there could be no basis for the Company’s argument that the value of the Seized Materials was still worth HK$1,302,577 more than a year after the stock taking exercise. 33.Mr Chong’s valuation of HK$2,363,033.78 is based on valuation of the stock as at 30 June 2005 of HK$1,302,577 plus the Company’s evidence before the Foshan Intermediate Court and his interpretation of the PRC judgment. The Company’s case on the counterclaim before the court was that it had supplied 1,399 kilograms of fabrics worth HK$1,060,456.78 to the Petitioner for making garments to meet an order with Lee Fung Company, but the Petitioner refused to manufacture the garments or to return the materials. 34.At page 8 of the PRC judgment, the Foshan Intermediate Court referred to the Company’s documentary evidence in support of its claim for return of the materials in the value of $1,060,456.78. The nature of those documents was further discussed on page 14. Those documents were: a sales memorandum entered into between the Company and Lee Fung Company dated 22 August 2005 for supply of garments in the value of US$47,412; a letter of credit issued by Lee Fung Company to the Company in the same amount; the Company’s purchase order dated 7 November 2005 to Lung Hin Development Company for the purchase of cotton lace material for $35,400; two bills of lading issued by Zhujiang Agent Limited Company to the Petitioner dated 24 December 2005 and 11 February 2006 in respect of 1,120 and 279 kilograms of cotton fabrics respectively; and a receipt by a staff of the Petitioner for the materials. At page 20 of the judgment, the court found that the Company had entered into an agreement with Lee Fung Company for the supply of garments for US$47,412; that the Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Company to manufacture the garments; that the Petitioner had received 1,399 kilograms of fabrics from the Company for manufacturing the said garments but failed to performed its part of the agreement. Hence, the court found that the Petitioner was liable to compensate the Company. However, the court rejected the Company’s claim for damages for breach of contract in the amount of US$47,412 due to lack of supporting evidence of its actual loss of profit. In respect of the Company’s claim for return of the materials supplied to the Petitioner for the performance of that agreement, the court rejected the Company’s claim for $1,060,456.78 due to lack of supporting evidence and hence ordered the Petitioner to return the Seized Materials, which must have included the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics in issue. 35.Mr Chong submits that the Foshan Intermediate Court did not accept the Company’s evidence of the value of the materials because of they were third party documents. He criticises such logic and argues that this Court could take a different view of the admissibility of the documents. But he produced none of the documents before me. In my opinion, the view taken by the Foshan Intermediate Court could not have been faulted. The Company entered into a contract to supply garments to Lee Fung Company for US$47,412, approximately HK$369,800. It is only logical that the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics delivered to the Petitioner for production of the garments could only worth a fraction of the contract price of the garments to be supplied to Lee Fung Company. It was simply incredible that the Company could have delivered to the Petitioner materials worth HK$1,060,456.78 for production of what it had contracted to sell only for a third of the cost of the materials. The Company must have been grossly inflating its claim which was rightly rejected by the Foshan Intermediate Court. The court was satisfied that 1,399 kilograms of fabrics had been delivered to the Petitioner. It must also have been satisfied that they constituted the substantial part of the Seized Materials when ordering their return to the Company in satisfaction of the Company’s claim despite the Freezing Order. Mr Chong is only resurrecting an unmeritorious argument which had been rightly rejected by the Foshan Intermediate Court. 36.Furthermore, the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics were delivered to the Petitioner by 11 February 2006 and the inventory was taken by the court bailiffs on 4 August 2006. Zhao said that the Petitioner applied for the Freezing Order to safeguard its interest and to avoid future disputes over the remaining stock. She must therefore have taken care to freeze all the materials supplied by the Company, including the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics, as it must be in her best interest to have them seized by the Foshan Intermediate Court for future execution purpose. 37.An inventory was taken by the court bailiffs on 4 August 2006 and again on 30 June 2009 which confirmed that the Seized Materials comprised of 36,502.50 yards (33,377.89 metres) of fabrics, 10,000 metres of coarse fabrics, 500 kilograms of miscellaneous fabrics and two sewing machines. This tallied with the valuation report by Da Zheng Valuers (see paragraph 27 above) which showed that there were 33,377.89 metres of fabric for men’s wear and women’s wear, linen fabric of 11,822.28 metres, 10,000 metres of coarse fabrics, 500 kilograms of miscellaneous fabric and two sewing machines. Looking at the photographs taken by Da Zheng Valuers, it appears that the fabrics for men’s wear and women’s wear of 21,555.61 metres were probably the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics for manufacturing garments to meet the order of Lee Fung Company. The linen fabrics, miscellaneous fabrics and coarse fabrics were probably left over from the stock taking exercise in June 2005. In my view, the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics which most probably constituted the substantial part of the set off claim could not have cost or worth more than a fraction of US$47,412, i.e. HK$369,800 and the value of the balance of the other left over materials could not have been substantial after delivery of the finished garments. 38.Finally, Mr Chong’s valuation is inconsistent with the Company’s stance in its appeal before the Guangdong High Court. In that appeal, the Company did not repeat its claim of HK$1,060,456.78 for the Seized Materials but asked for damages in the amount of USD$57,219.40 or return of the Seized Materials. That indicates clearly that the Company accepted that the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics were included among the Seized Materials and that the value of the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics could not exceed the contract price of US$47,412 for the garments to be produced from those fabrics plus about US$10,000 for the balance of other materials left over from the previous production orders. Mr Chong’s argument that the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics was worth HK$1,060,456.78 was just a fantasy. The other building block of his argument, namely that the Seized Materials excluding the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics was worth HK$1,302,577 has been rejected by me earlier (see paragraph 32 above). His submission that the Company’s claim for set off was worth HK$2,363,033.78 is simply monstrous. 39.The Company bears the burden of proving that it has a claim for set off exceeding the petitioning debt. Even if it has a claim for set off in respect of the unlawful or irregular auctioning of the Seized Materials against the Petitioner, it could not provide any credible evidence that the Seized Materials was worth HK$1,302,577 or HK$1,060,456.78 or any amount which would exceed the petitioning debt. The only credible evidence of the value of the Seized Materials was the valuation by Da Zheng Valuers and the actual price obtained during the auction. Even allowing for a very generous discount in a forced sale, the value of the Seized Materials could not be substantial. Besides, the set off claim would have to be reduced by the proceeds of sale of RMB142,566 which had been applied towards reduction of the PRC judgment debt. Assuming the market value of the Seized Materials was RMB241,000, the Company’s claim at the highest would be RMB98,434, about 10% of the petitioning debt. The Company has failed miserably in discharging the burden of proof. In view of that, the complaints of irregularities in the execution of the PRC judgment and in the auctioning process could not advance the Company’s case any further. This is sufficient to dispose of the Company’s opposition to the petition. 40.In the following sections, I shall deal briefly with the other objections raised by the Company. Those objections are frivolous. They are aimed at challenging the legality of the execution of the PRC judgment and the auction of the Seized Materials. Even if the Company were successful in setting aside the execution order, that will not render the PRC judgment void or extinguish the petitioning debt. Even if the auction of the Seized Materials were unlawful, the Company’s claim arising therefrom could not exceed the petitioning debt. Irregularities in the execution of the PRC judgment - the contempt of court 41.The secondary thrust of Mr Chong’s opposition to the petition is that the Petitioner executed on the Seized Materials which had been ordered by the Foshan Intermediate Court to be returned to the Company within ten days of its judgment on 13 December 2007, but the Petitioner in contempt of the court not only retained the Seized Materials for sixteen months but caused them to be sold. While making a lot of noise about the contumacious conduct of the Petitioner, Mr Chong kept silent about his client’s own contempt in not paying the PRC judgment debt ordered to be paid within the same period of time for almost thirty-six months and notwithstanding its appeal to the Guangdong High Court was dismissed. In reply to Zhao’s demand for payment, Fong said that the Company would not pay a single cent. This was not traversed by the Company. That remained the Company’s stance as at the date of the hearing. No explanation was offered for the non payment other than a grossly exaggerated claim for set off and spurious allegations about irregularities in the execution of the PRC judgment or auctioning process. Even assuming there was contempt of the court on the part of the Petitioner in executing on the Seized Materials, all the points raised by Mr Chong were just red herring. He failed to show as a result that the Company has a substantial set off which would exceed the petitioning debt. 42.The explanations given by Mr Lam for the Petitioner’s failing to return the Seized Materials were that the Company refused to pay the PRC judgment debt, that the Company had no other assets in the PRC except the Seized Materials, that the Foshan Intermediate Court was aware of the Petitioner’s obligation to return the Seized Materials and that the execution was the result of due process. In my view, only the last two reasons are valid reasons. The Foshan Intermediate Court was aware of the Petitioner’s obligation to return the Seized Materials and that the execution was the result of due process. In its Decision for Execution dated 23 June 2009, the court wrote:
43.It is clear from the above decision that when ordering execution on the Seized Materials, the Foshan Intermediate Court was fully aware that the Seized Materials had been ordered to be returned to the Company. When ordering the execution, the court was exercising its power under articles 218 and 220 of the PRC Civil Litigation Law which authorise the court to seize, sell, auction the debtor’s property. Article 220 provides as follows:
Though the Seized Materials had not been physically returned to the Company, the court must have regarded them to be the Company’s property or deemed them to be such. Had the Seized Materials been returned to the Company, the court would be empowered to seize and sell them just the same. There can be no valid complaint that the Seized Materials had not been returned to the Company. Any argument that had the Seized Materials been returned to the Company, the Company could have taken them out of the jurisdiction of the court will not find favour with this Court. Irregularities in the execution of the PRC judgment - the wrong currency 44.The Petitioner’s claim before the Foshan Intermediate Court was for a sum of HK$1,006,980.50 but the court mistakenly made an award in Reminbi. The error was rectified on 3 November 2008, but had not been brought to the attention of the Guangdong High Court during the appeal resulting in the court confirming the award in Reminbi on 29 November 2008. At the then exchange rate in 2008 and 2009, the award in Reminbi was advantageous to the Company. That probably was the reason why the issue was not raised by the Company during the appeal. The error was only corrected on 26 September 2010. In view of the current exchange rate differential, the petitioning debt has been overstated. There is no dispute that the Foshan Intermediate Court and the Guangdong High Court made a clerical mistake about the currency. But the significance of that mistake has been more than grossly overstated by Mr Chong accusing the Petitioner of want of bona fides in its execution of the PRC judgment. 45.Mr Chong complained that the wrong amount was demanded by the Petitioner’s solicitors’ letter of 30 December 2009. It is well settled law the fact that the full amount of the statutory demand could not be proved to be owing does not invalidate a demand or render the company involved any less insolvent so long as a debt which exceeded the statutory limit is due and admitted or not bona fide disputed. In the light of the authority and the fact that the petitioning debt well exceeded the statutory limit, the mistake has no bearing in this petition. 46.Chiang attempted to take the matter further. He said in his legal opinion that by reason of the mistake in the currency of the award, the subject matter of the execution was wrong and the execution invalid. Though the court made a mistake about the currency, the mistake was nevertheless in favour of the Company in that the value of the property authorised to be executed on was less and in any event the total value of property executed was but a fraction of the PRC judgment debt. Chiang cited no statutory provision in support of his opinion, which was even less than common sense. I do not accept his legal opinion. Irregularities in the execution of the PRC judgment - the service of process 47.Mr Chong relies on Chiang’s opinion that the service of the notice and legal process relating to the execution and auction were defective. The main thrust of Chiang’s opinion is that under the《關於内地與香港 特别行政區法院相互委託送達民商事司法文書的安排》reciprocal arrangement for the service of legal process in civil proceedings, service of such process issued by the PRC courts to a resident in Hong Kong shall be effected through the respective Higher People’s Court in the PRC and the High Court of Hong Kong, but the service of the notice of execution, the valuation report of the Seized Materials, date and venue of the auction and the result of the auction were not served under such arrangement and the Company actually did not receive such legal processes, except for the result of the auction. This arrangement had been in place since 1999. Yeung did not challenge Chiang’s legal opinion but argued, without supporting authority, that the Foshan Intermediate Court and not the Petitioner should be responsible for the defective service. That argument is also less than common sense. In the absence of any supporting authorities, I have no difficulty in dismissing the argument, though in the PRC the courts are responsible for execution of judgment. 48.The registered address of the Company used to be at Room 720, New Tech Plaza, 34 Tai Yau Street, San Po Kong, Kowloon. Since the commencement of the legal action in the PRC, it changed its address to another unit in Room 1701 of the same building. As the legal processes were delivered by ordinary mail to the Company’s former address by the Foshan Intermediate Court, they were not received by the Company, except for the result of the auction, presumably through redirection service of the Hong Kong Post Office. 49.According to Chiang, he made an inquiry with Judge Lai of the Foshan Intermediate Court responsible for the execution process which the Company was entitled to make under PRC law. He was told by the judge that under article 11 of《最高人民法院關於以法院專遞方式郵寄送達民事訴訟文書的若干規定》regarding service by post of legal process by court issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC, a litigant who changed his address since the commencement of the first instance proceedings or the appellate proceedings but before completion of the execution process was under a duty to notify the court in writing of the change and should he fail to do so, the date of return of the legal process shall be deemed the date of effective service. Chiang’s reply was that the Company had never received notice of execution and it could not be said that it had changed its address of service before conclusion of the execution process. I think his answer was only begging the question. However, that article could only save the non-delivery had service been effected by the High Court of Hong Kong in accordance with the reciprocal arrangement. It does not help the Petitioner. But, it is curious that the Company did not rely on irregular service of process as a ground in its application to the Foshan Intermediate Court for setting aside the execution order. Perhaps, it knew for some other reasons which Chiang has withheld from the Court that there is no merit in this ground. I shall not speculate, but assume that the Company has proved the irregularity. But be that as it may, at the highest, the execution was void, the Petitioner would be liable to the Company for the Seized Materials converted. The question still remains whether the Company has a set off exceeding the petitioning debt. It has not. Irregularities in the auction of the Seized Materials - the sale of customs controlled goods 50.Mr Chong also challenges the legality of the auction on the ground that the Petitioner withheld or suppressed information to the Foshan Intermediate Court that the Seized Materials were customs controlled goods not liable to execution without first obtaining the consent of the Customs Department of the PRC. It is common ground that the Seized Materials were materials imported into the PRC for the purpose of manufacturing for export without paying customs duty and were therefore customs controlled goods. Chiang quoted article 29 of《拍賣管理辦法》 issued by the Commerce Bureau which provides that customs controlled goods may not be auctioned and article 14 of《廣東省財產拍賣條例》which provides that customs controlled goods may only be auctioned with approval of the Customs Department. Hence, Mr Chong argues that the auction was unlawful. This Court has not been provided with the full text of the two statutes and is unable to decide the position of the two statutes in the legislation hierarchy. Apparently, one is a regulation issued by the responsible bureau and the other is provincial legislation. Be that as it may, it is clear from the《廣東省財產拍賣條例》that the prohibition against auction of customs controlled goods is not absolute. 51.Zhao’s evidence was that the Company had complained to the Customs Department in Shunde about the auction in February 2010. The Customs officers conducted an investigation in the Petitioner’s factory premises at the end of February 2010 and indicated that the matter was trivial and at most they would require the Petitioner to pay customs duty not exceeding RMB20,000. The Customs investigation concluded with the officers requiring a written report by the Petitioner on the incident. On such evidence, it appears that customs controlled goods are controlled for the purpose of paying customs duty and the Customs Department would grant retrospective approval for their sale with or without payment of customs duty. 52.In addition to the Company’s complaint in February 2010, Chiang had been to the Customs Department in Shunde and Guangzhou making similar complaints to their top officials on 6 May 2010. He was told that he would be informed of the outcome of any inquiry. But as at the date of hearing before me, seven months have lapsed. Chiang had nothing to report about his complaint. This lends weight to Zhao’s evidence that the auction was just a trivial matter, retrospective approval could be given upon payment of customs duty and the matter had been concluded with a written report from the Petitioner. In any event, Chiang did not tell the Court what was the consequence of such auction without Customs approval. Even assuming that the auction was unlawful, the question is what was the value of the claim the Company could have over the Seized Materials sold. The Company has failed miserably in showing that it has a set off exceeding the petitioning debt. Irregularities in the auction of the Seized Materials - the valuation report and auction were not brought to the Company’s notice 53.The Company complained that as a result of the irregular service, it was deprived of the valuation report and details of the auction. It could not challenge the valuation or participate in the auction to buy back the Seized Materials worth HK$1,302,577 and suffered loss. Again, the ultimate question is what was the value of the Seized Materials and what was the Company’s loss. In any event, the Company is unable to show that it has a set off exceeding the petitioning debt. The Company’s application to set aside the execution order of Foshan Intermediate Court 54.Based on the irregularities alleged above, the Company said it had applied to the Foshan Intermediate Court to set aside its execution order. In his 9th affirmation, Fong produced a copy of the application dated 21 October 2010. There is no dispute that the application has not been served on the Petitioner. In his 11th affirmation, Fong averred that the Foshan Intermediate Court was satisfied that the Company had established a prima facie case that the execution order should be set aside and the court had accepted the application for filing. He produced a list of twenty documents submitted to and acknowledged by the court dated 18 November 2010 as evidence of acceptance of the application for filing. In his 3rd supplemental expert witness opinion, Chiang asserted that receipt of the list was acceptance of the application for filing. The list reads as follows:
55.Mr Chong submits that the filing of the application dated 21 October 2010 was not acceptance of the application but receipt of the documents on 18 November 2010 was. He argues that this list is evidence that the application has been accepted by the court. He submits that the nomination of the trial judge and secretary as shown in the list and the receipt of the list of documents is evidence of acceptance of the application. This is a wild assertion unsupported by any expert evidence on the practice and procedure of PRC law. I do not consider Chiang’s assertion amounted to credible evidence on PRC law and procedure either. It is unsupported by any statute. The list was submitted to the Foshan Intermediate Court by the Company’s PRC law expert, Chiang. He was in Court at the hearing. Yet the Company did not seek leave to file further expert evidence in support of this contention. Instead, Chiang just shied away leaving it to Fong to file his 11th affirmation averring the above. On the face, the list is just a list of documents receipt of which was acknowledged by the court. I am unable to read from the list that Judge Lai and Secretary Xue were nominated as the judge and judicial officer to handle the setting aside application. It is apparent that their names were written by the same hand that filled in the list, namely Chiang. Apparently, their names were just put on the list as the identity of the judge who issued the execution order now being sought to be set aside and the identity of the secretary who certified the authenticity of that order. 56.Most fatally, Mr Chong’s submission as well as Chiang’s assertion in his 3rd supplemental expert witness opinion are contradicted by Chiang’s own opinion in page 6 of his supplemental expert witness opinion dated 13 June 2010. There he said:
There was no mention by Chiang about the two-step approach in filing the application and then acceptance by filing supporting documents. Chiang also did not mention what would happen after acceptance by the Foshan Intermediate Court. According to Chiang’s opinion, the Foshan Intermediate Court would take seven days to decide whether to accept the application. If it refuses, the Company may apply for review to the Guangdong High Court. The Guangdong High Court will usually reach a decision within one month. Presumably (again, it is not entirely clear from Chiang’s evidence), if it dismisses the review, that would be the end of the matter. Otherwise, the court will accept the case. Then the executive committee of the court will conduct a hearing and make a ruling not later than three months. The aggrieved party, whether the Petitioner or Company, may appeal to the Guangdong High Court, which will pass a decision within three months of registration of the appeal. Thus, if the Company had exercised due diligence in each step of the procedure, in the worst case scenario, it would take eight months for the Guangdong High Court to reach a final determination whether to set aside the execution order. Five weeks have lapsed by the time of the hearing before me. The Company was unable to advise of any progress or what stage the setting aside application has reached. 57.Looking at the events more critically, the application was filed on 21 October 2010. According to Chiang, the court accepted the application on 18 November 2010. That was a lapse of four weeks and not seven days. This showed that Chiang’s legal opinion was not entirely correct, or that he was withholding the fact that the application had been refused. 58.On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the receipt dated 18 November 2010 was acceptance by the Foshan Intermediate Court of the application to set aside its execution order. But, even assuming it was and the Company would be successful in having the execution order set aside, the ultimate question remains whether it has a set off exceeding the petitioning debt. But it has not. Whether the Company has a bona fide set off exceeding the petitioning debt 59.The thrust of the Company’s case is that it has a very good chance of success in setting aside the execution order. In essence, its case is that the Petitioner was in contempt of court in not returning the Seized Materials to the Company. Its claim for set off arose out of alleged irregularities in the service of the execution processes and notices relating to the auction of the Seized Materials. According to its PRC legal expert, it has a very good chance of success in setting aside the execution order. But that is not the end of the matter. There is a world of difference between being able to set aside an execution order and setting aside a judgment or judgment debt. The PRC judgment is final and cannot be set aside. Even if the execution order would be set aside, the liability to pay the PRC judgment debt or the processing fee for the garments still remains. To resist the winding up petition, the Company has to show it has a set off claim which would exceed the petitioning debt. 60.On the facts, I am not satisfied that the Foshan Intermediate Court had accepted the Company’s application to set aside the execution order. On the other hand, due to deficiency of the Petitioner’s legal expert, I am satisfied that the Company has shown an arguable case of irregularity in the service of execution process. It was on that basis that I find at the highest the Company has shown it has a claim for set off. But I also note that the Company did not rely on the irregularities in the service of legal process as a ground in its application to the Foshan Intermediate Court for setting aside the execution order. That suggests it may not be a meritorious ground and the Company knew it. 61.Everything considered, at the highest the Company has shown it has a set off claim, but falls far short of proving that the claim would exceed or would be of an amount near to the petitioning debt. It put up various excuses and factual disputes about the value of the Seized Materials. Its claim based on the stock taking record back in June 2005 that the materials was worth HK$1,302,577 or based on Mr Chong’s valuation that it was worth HK$2,363,033.78 is grossly exaggerated and not bona fide. 62.The Company sent its legal expert, a professional hire gun, to complain to the most senior Customs officials in Shunde and Guangzhou about evasion of customs duty by the Petitioner and to procure a receipt of documents as evidence of acceptance of its application to set aside the execution order. Not only that the Company did not have a claim for set off which would exceed the petitioning debt, its claim is not bona fide. All that the Company has done is to show a deliberate intention to keep the Petitioner out of its money for as long as it could. Whether the Company is insolvent 63.The Company denied it is insolvent. Fong explained that the Company was not paying the PRC judgment debt because it was in the process of applying to have the execution order of the Foshan Intermediate Court set aside and it has a genuine claim for set off exceeding the petitioning debt. These are all fake excuses. 64.The Company said it is solvent and has cash flow exceeding HK$5 million by 30 December 2010. The money included two sums of stakeholder money held by its solicitors in respect of the sale of its two properties in the amount of HK$318,280 and HK$2,490,000 and a sum of stakeholder money in the amount of HK$2,204,464 held by one of its directors, Fang. 65.The Petitioner relies on the presumption of insolvency under section 178(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance by reason of the Company’s failure to pay the petitioning debt upon demand within three weeks. In addition, it relies on the Company’s additional liabilities created in 2010 and other suspicious conduct of the Company and Fang. 66.Mr Lam also drew my attention to the value of the inventories stated in the Company’s financial statements. For the year ending 30 June 2009, the inventories were stated to be worth HK$2,449,675. But the auditor cautioned on the reliability of the figures as follows:
For the year ending 30 June 2010, the value of the inventories was stated to be HK$2,590,731. But of that amount HK$1.3 million was allegedly held by the Petitioner. Again, the auditor said that the report was qualified and cautioned as follows:
For two consecutive years, the Company has been inflating its inventories by the fictitious stock allegedly worth HK$1.3 million, when it knew the stock had been used in production of garments and the balance had been sold under auction. This is an act of dishonesty which I must have regard to when assessing the Company’s evidence on its solvency. 67.The Company also owed the Petitioner the following sums not included in the financial statement for the year ending 30 June 2010:
68.In addition, the Company owed a supporting creditor HK$104,764 pursuant to the order of Chung J made on 6 August 2010. 69.When the Company’s balance sheet is adjusted by deducting the HK$1.3 million worth of inventories which no longer existed and taking into account the additional liabilities created in 2010, the Company is marginally balance sheet solvent:
However, taking into account the Company’s prospective liability in respect of its own legal costs in this action, it may indeed be insolvent or marginally insolvent. 70.On the suspicious conduct of the Company and Fang, Mr Lam drew my attention to the fact that according to the Company’s financial statement for the year ending 30 June 2010, it had ceased business since 1 February 2010. Next, Mr Lam referred to the financial statement for the year ending 30 June 2009 which showed that an amount of HK$2,148,354 was due from Fang. The sum was recorded as an interest free, unsecured loan without repayment terms. In the financial statement for the year ending 30 June 2010, the loan disappeared and was replaced by a stakeholder money of a slightly larger amount of HK$2,204,464. It was stated in the financial statement that it was agreed that the money be stake held by Fang unsecured, interest-free and payable on demand. The amount had been increasing from HK$1,452,997 in 2008 to HK$2,148,354 in 2009 until it was converted into stake held money in 2010. Fang is a resident in the PRC. There was no explanation why funds of a company should be stake held by Fang. Understandably, the fact that the Company’s funds were being held by someone out of the jurisdiction is of concern to the Petitioner. Discounting this suspicious amount from the balance sheet and cash flow of the Company, the Company is both balance sheet and cash flow insolvent. 71.Next, Mr Lam referred me to the very substantial reduction in the Company’s current liability from HK$10,629,304 in 2009 to only HK$2,825,349 in 2010. He submits that this is extremely suspicious as the Company had ceased trading since February 2010. But I note that there was a total of $7,831,749 under the trade debtors and bills receivable account in 2009, which was reduced to nil in 2010. That might explain the reduction in the Company’s liability in 2010. 72.Mr Chong reiterated his argument that the Company has a set off which would extinguish the petitioning debt, that the Company has lodged an application to set aside the execution order made by the Foshan Intermediate Court and that the Company had good chance of success. He submits that it would be proper for this Court to dismiss the petition or have it stayed pending resolution of the dispute in the PRC. With respect, I do not agree. The Company has utterly failed to show it has a set off exceeding the petitioning debt. Even if it were successful in setting aside the execution order, which I doubted, for reasons as explained many times above, the damages to be awarded would not be sufficient to extinguish the petitioning debt. Besides, its claim for set off was exaggerated and not bona fide, but made deliberately with the intent of keeping the Petitioner out of its money. 73.Though the Petitioner failed to show that the Company was balance sheet insolvent, it is entitled to rely on the deeming provision under section 187(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance. It is impossible at this stage for the Petitioner to ascertain the Company’s total indebtedness, especially as the Company has engaged in a course of dishonest conduct in inflating its inventories. The Company ceased operation, sold its properties, disposed of its liquid assets as stakeholder money held by its director who is out of the jurisdiction of this Court. There is no explanation for all these irregular activities. Non payment of the debt in the absence of a bona fide dispute of the debt on substantial ground or in the absence of a bona fide counterclaim or set off which would exceed the petitioning debt is already very strong evidence on which the inference of insolvency could be raised. By reason of its dishonest conduct in inflating the value of its assets in the balance sheet and in the light of the suspicious conduct mentioned above, the inference of insolvency is compelling. In the circumstances, I am entitled to draw the inference which I indeed draw. Accordingly, I find the Company insolvent. Conclusion 74.The petitioning debt is not disputed by the Company. I find that the Company did not have a bona fide claim for set off on substantially ground which is sufficient to extinguish the petitioning debt. The Company has failed to pay the petitioning debt and is deemed to be insolvent pursuant to section 178(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance. The Company has demonstrated its deliberate intention to keep the Petitioner out of its money and to evade its liability. It has demonstrated dishonesty in inflating its assets. For the protection of its creditors, a winding up order is appropriate. 75.The Company does not have any reasonable or genuine ground for not paying the petitioning debt or for resisting the petition. Its grounds for resisting the petition are all frivolous and vexatious. It raised issues which are wholly unarguable. Despite its claim for set off had been dismissed by the Foshan Intermediate Court, it attempted to resurrect the claim as an equitable set off based on the same evidence. 76.Not only that, the Comapny inflated the value of its claim to a level far beyond that which it had claimed before the Foshan Intermediate Court and in the appeal before the Guangdong High Court. It claimed that the value of the Seized Materials was HK$2,363,033.78 based on a stock taking exercise in June 2005 and the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics delivered in December 2005 and February 2006. These basis of claim were abandoned before the Guangdong High Court. The Company must have known that most of the materials reported in the stock taking exercise in June 2005 had been turned into garments and delivered to the Company and that the 1,399 kilograms of fabrics could not have worth more than US$47,412, the contract price of the garments to be sold. The Company had no respect to the Court and was practising a fraud by attempting to persuade or deceive the Court that it had a claim for set off of HK$2,363,033.78. It must have known in the ultimate issue that it does not have any claim for set off which would exceed the petitioning debt. 77.The Company raised issues about irregularities in the execution of the PRC judgment and auctioning process which it never challenged for more than a year until the commencement of the petition. For that purpose, it employed a hire gun as its expert in PRC law. It raised issues in PRC law, practice and procedures, which do not address the issues in dispute because even if the execution order were to be set aside, it does not have the effect of setting aside the PRC judgment which is final and the petitioning debt remains indisputable. 78.All the Company has achieved was to demonstrate a clear and deliberate intention to keep the Petitioner out of its money regardless of its own and the Petitioner’s costs. It attempted to practise a fraud on the Court. Its conduct is outrageous and amounted to abuse of proceedings. To show the Court’s disapproval, it is appropriate that it should be ordered to pay the Petitioner’s costs on indemnity basis. 79.Accordingly, I grant the usual winding up order against the Company and make a costs order nisi that the Company shall pay the Petitioner’s costs on indemnity basis. 80.As for the Official Receiver’s costs in this petition, inclusive of the costs of the Company’s striking out application and validation application, those costs are assessed in the amount of HK$8,500. Such costs are to be deducted, so far as possible, from the deposit paid by the Petitioner; shortfall if any, be paid by the Petitioner to the Official Receiver and surplus if any, be returned to the Petitioner, but such costs are to be recoverable by the Petitioner from the Company.
Mr Joseph Lam Siu Wah, instructed by Messrs C.C. Lee & Co., for the Petitioning Creditor Mr K.M. Chong and Mr Lawrence Cheung, instructed by Messrs Raymond Cheung & Chan, for the Debtor Company Official Receiver’s attendance excused | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCW 41/2010