In Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449, the Honourable Mr Justice Harris held that a petition to wind up a company on the ground of insolvency should “generally be dismissed” where:

In recent years the Hong Kong Companies Court has dealt with a large number of applications for recognition and assistance from the Courts of various overseas jurisdictions in relation to cross border insolvency matters. The Court will now routinely grant orders of recognition and assistance to liquidators of companies incorporated in Commonwealth jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, which are all common law jurisdictions which have insolvency law regimes which are in many ways similar to Hong Kong’s own regime.

In recent years, the Hong Kong courts have been required to deal with a significant number of cases concerning cross border insolvency. Most notably, a number of cases have arisen where insolvency practitioners appointed by overseas courts seek recognition of their authority to act on behalf of overseas companies placed in liquidation or a similar insolvency regime, and to seek authority to use powers equivalent to those granted to liquidators by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.

In the past couple of decades, jurisdictions all over the world have been required to grapple with problems arising out of corporate insolvencies with cross-border elements. Solving these problems has required considerable judicial flexibility and innovation, but judges in some jurisdictions have been helped by the enactment of legislation designed to deal with cross-border status.

In Re Kin Ming Toy Manufactory Ltd (in liquidation), HCCW 402/2015 [2018] HKCFI 2057 and 2285, Harris J of the Court of First Instance dismissed an application under section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (the Ordinance), Cap. 32, brought by the liquidators of a company in liquidation seeking to void two payments made out of the company’s bank account after commencement of the winding up proceedings, and further ordered that the liquidators be held personally liable for the costs of the unsuccessful application.

Key Facts

The impact of an arbitration clause on the Court’s discretion to grant a winding up order was recently considered by the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong.

In Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited (HCCW 227/2017; [2018] HKCFI 426), the Court dismissed a winding up petition in view of an arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties and held that the dispute concerning the alleged debt should be dealt with in accordance with the arbitration clause.

Facts

The case of Wing Hong Construction Limited v Hui Chi Yung and Ors [2017] HKEC 1173 provides an overview of the legal principles which apply to an application for security for costs, where the Plaintiff against whom security is sought is a company and the application is made under section 905 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). This was an appeal against the decision of a Master who had dismissed the Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff which was a private company in liquidation. The appeal was allowed and security for costs of HK$2 million ordered.

In Re Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd [2016] 4 HKLRD 301, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance had to consider the question of whether an arbitration award could be enforced by winding up the company against which the award had been made, without first applying for leave to enforce the award under section 84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609). The Court answered that question in the affirmative.

Generally speaking, the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated, and the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company has often been described as exorbitant or as usurping the functions of the courts of the country of incorporation.

In a recent winding-up case, Discreet Ltd v. Wing Bo Building Construction Co., Ltd [2017] HCCW 49/2017, the Court confirmed that when there is clearly a cross-claim which exceeds the sum claimed by the petitioner, and it is clear that the cross-claim is genuine and based on substantial grounds, the petition can amount to an abuse of process.

Background