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
The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (the "Amendment Ordinance") came into effect on 13 February 2017 seeking to revamp and modernize the winding-up regime in Hong Kong, but does it go far enough?
Hong Kong’s notoriously landlord-friendly leases make it hard to renegotiate terms during an economic downturn, tying many tenants into leases well above market values. The territory’s high rents, added to 24 months of declining retail sales, have left retailers in Hong Kong feeling the chill. Many tenants may wish to look beyond their contractual rights and obligations to find a commercial solution. In such difficult circumstances, there are six options retailers could consider.
1. Rent restructure
The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) has issued a judgment1 examining the instances in which the Hong Kong courts will exercise their jurisdiction to wind-up a foreign company.
In a welcome decision the CFI has made it clear that, given certain conditions, creditors will be able to enlist the winding-up jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts in order to exert pressure on foreign companies which refuse to pay their debts.
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 first in Hong Kong, the Companies Court has recently sanctioned a creditors' scheme of arrangement proposed by a Bermuda-incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company by approving an alternative process pursued by the company and its provisional liquidators so as to overcome the constraints in Re Legend International Resorts Ltd [2006] 2 HKLRD 192; that in Hong Kong, provisional liquidators cannot be appointed for the sole purpose of restructuring a company.
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