In the first instance decision of Fo Shan Shi Shun De Qu Consonancy Investment Co Ltd v Yat Kit Jong [2017] HKEC 557, the Court took a dim view of a party's conduct in respect of expert directions. It held that the party's failure to properly define the scope of the issues to be covered by the expert was a violation of procedural rules and prejudicial to the opposing party, and as such ordered that the party be penalised on costs.
Facts
In Re Hin-Pro International Logistics Limited[1], the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that it has jurisdiction to grant leave to amend a creditor's winding up petition to include debts accrued only after its presentation.
In its landmark decision of Kam Leung Sui Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai & Ors FACV 4/2015, issued yesterday, the Court of Final Appeal has brought some closure to the long running Yung Kee restaurant matter by making a winding up order against Yung Kee Holdings Limited (YKHL) with a 28-day stay to allow the parties to consider possible buy-out opportunities. This reverses the previous decisions in the Court of First Instance and the
The case of Re Company A-E [2015] HCMP 2019/2015 demonstrates that the Court will take a practical approach in determining whether a funding arrangement infringes upon the common law rules against maintenance and champerty. The Court will consider commercial factors, such as the underlying rationale for the funding arrangement and the commercial character of the funder, alongside its analysis of the common law principles.
On 17 July 2014, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal gave judgment in the case of Moulin Global Eyecare Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (formerly known as Moulin International Holdings Limited) v Olivia Lee Sin Mei FACV No. 23 of 2013,providing helpful guidance on the expiry of applicable limitation periods.
Background
The High Court in Hong Kong recently examined the circumstances in which a liquidator was able to depart from their implied duty not to disclose documents obtained from third parties under statute or in the furtherance of their legal duty.
The case of Re Company A-E [2015] HCMP 2019/2015 demonstrates that the Court will take a practical approach in determining whether a funding arrangement infringes upon the common law rules against maintenance and champerty. The Court will consider commercial factors, such as the underlying rationale for the funding arrangement and the commercial character of the funder, alongside its analysis of the common law principles.
On 17 July 2014, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal gave judgment in the case of Moulin Global Eyecare Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (formerly known as Moulin International Holdings Limited) v Olivia Lee Sin Mei FACV No. 23 of 2013,providing helpful guidance on the expiry of applicable limitation periods.
Background
The High Court in Hong Kong recently examined the circumstances in which a liquidator was able to depart from their implied duty not to disclose documents obtained from third parties under statute or in the furtherance of their legal duty.
The recent decision in Re The Liquidator of Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd (in liquidation in the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 965 reaffirms the willingness of the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Companies Court”) to recognise the winding-up of a company in Mainland China and thereby grant recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed in the Mainland.