The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has finally laid to rest the vexed issue of whether an arbitration agreement or a winding-up petition should take precedence in an insolvency situation. In two parallel decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration agreement should be treated in the same way as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the principle should be given a wide interpretation.

According to a recent report, nearly 6,000 construction companies in the UK are in danger of going out of business. In Hong Kong, a major contractor has lost its licence and was removed from the government's registered list of contractors on 16 November 2023, with the company being given only a month to settle five private residential and commercial projects. When construction companies become insolvent, a host of tricky legal and practical issues come into play.

A bleak picture

Three recent Hong Kong first instance court decisions have left undecided the question of whether a winding-up petition will trump an agreement to arbitrate when it comes to a winding-up and particularly in the context of cross-claims. A Court of Final Appeal decision this spring had seemed to provide pointers that the parties' agreement would be upheld but the issue – particularly when it comes to unmeritorious and late arbitration applications – is dividing the courts.

For the first time in England & Wales, a court has ordered the winding-up of a listed plc on the grounds of loss of substratum – the abandonment of the company's original main object and purpose. If Hong Kong follows this decision, it would be very welcome to minority shareholders who would have an additional option to retrieve their investment monies from companies that embark on a completely different path to that for which they initially signed up.

In a pair of recent contrasting judgments, Re Agritrade Resources Ltd [2020] HKCFI 1967 and Re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2260, the Hong Kong Court has once again confirmed its pragmatic approach towards applications by foreign liquidators and provisional liquidators for recognition and assistance in Hong Kong. The judgments emphasize the importance of adhering to the standard forms of order adopted by the Hong Kong courts in respect of such applications, and the need for any departure from the standard form to be fully justified.

Just in time for the Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognizing a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. In the Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr. Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.