Lu Jun v. Astrotec Company Ltd (in Liquidation)

HCMP 3125/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3125 OF 2014

___________________

__________________

BETWEEN

__________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.There is before me an application to file the opposing evidence of the respondent out of time.  For four reasons, I refuse this application.

2.Firstly, the respondent only instructed its lawyers 1 day before the deadline for the filing of its evidence.  Such delay is unexplained.

3.Secondly, there is an unparticularised assertion that there was “difficulty” in taking instructions from the sole director of the respondent who lives in Shanghai.  With respect, such a reason can no longer be accepted in an age of modern technology.  In any event, Shanghai is only a short flight away.

4.Thirdly, it is suggested that the festive season had added to the difficulty in question.  Again, the assertion is unparticularised. In any case, the festive season only came into play after the expiration of the deadline for filing the respondent’s evidence.

5.Finally, I am unable to see much substance in the evidence of the respondent.  It contains no proper particulars.  It suggests that the s 228A procedure was used to frustrate a contractual right to appoint receiver, which might be exercised by a major creditor.  If true, I am not at all convinced that this was a legitimate exercise of the power under s 228A by the director of the respondent.  No authority has been cited before me to demonstrate the legitimacy of such an action.  Perhaps more importantly, this explanation is contrary to the statement of winding-up filed in these matters.

6.Accordingly, this application is refused.

Mr Jonathan Wong, instructed by Deacons, for the applicant

Mr Kevin Li, instructed by Y L Yeung & Co, for the respondent