City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) was a successful appeal against the decision of the district judge below to dismiss a winding up petition on several bases: first that the court had no jurisdiction to make an order because arrangements between the parties were subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, secondly because they provided for the application of Hong Kong law rather than English law, thirdly by reason of disputes regarding certain other contractual terms, and finally by reason of an issue as to whether the company had a viable cross claim.

The judgment of Adam Johnson J in Re Great Annual Savings Company Ltd, (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1141 (Ch) demonstrates again the rigorous approach the courts are taking in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions required to “cram down” dissenting creditors in restructuring plans as well as in the exercise of the court’s discretion to sanction them.

A claim under s 127 is restitutionary (see Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd v Bank of Ireland and Ahmed v Ingram), and in a case involving the payment of money is for unjust enrichment (see Officeserve Technologies Ltd v Annabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd).

Re Nasmyth Group Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 988 (Ch) sets out Leech J’s reasons for refusing to sanction a Part 26A restructuring plan.

The company acted as the holding company of engineering subsidiaries in the UK and elsewhere and provided administrative and treasury functions to the rest of the group.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Newey, Males and Snowden LLJ) in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 demonstrates the importance of the adequacy of any undertaking in damages given in support of an application for a freezing order and underlines the need for full and frank disclosure.

There are many cases about the appointment of administrators, not so many about terminating their appointment. Re Central Properties Holdings Ltd (In Administration) [2023] EWHC 829 (Ch) is one.

簡介

香港法院在香港將外國註冊公司清盤的法定司法管轄權，受到法院自設的限制所規限；該等限制被稱為法院行使上述司法管轄權之前所須符合的三大核心要求。

最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原訟法庭（「原訟庭」）需考慮是否將一間已被其註冊地點的法院清盤的外國註冊公司清盤。

案情

國安國際有限公司（「該公司」）的債權人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈請人」）於2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈請，請求發出將該公司清盤的附屬命令。該公司於開曼群島註冊成立，於2022年2月28日被開曼群島大法院清盤，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生於同日獲委任為其清盤人（「共同清盤人」）。反對呈請的債權人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（統稱「反對債權人 」）基於兩個主要理由反對呈請：

Introduction

The statutory jurisdiction of Hong Kong Courts to wind up a foreign-incorporated company in Hong Kong is subject to self-imposed restraints that have been articulated as the “three core requirements” which must be satisfied before the court would exercise that jurisdiction.

In the recent case of Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) considered whether to wind up a foreign-incorporated company which has already been wound up by the court in its place of incorporation.

简介

香港法院在香港将外国注册公司清盘的法定司法管辖权，受到法院自设的限制所规限；该等限制被称为法院行使上述司法管辖权之前所须符合的三大核心要求。

最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原讼法庭（「原讼庭」）需考虑是否将一间已被其注册地点的法院清盘的外国注册公司清盘。

案情

国安国际有限公司（「该公司」）的债权人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈请人」）于2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈请，请求发出将该公司清盘的附属命令。该公司于开曼群岛注册成立，于2022年2月28日被开曼群岛大法院清盘，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生于同日获委任为其清盘人（「共同清盘人」）。反对呈请的债权人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（统称「反对债权人 」）基于两个主要理由反对呈请：

Mehers v Khilji [2023] EWHC 298 (Ch) is an interesting case about the bankruptcy “use it or lose it” provision enshrined in s 283A Insolvency Act 1986. The provision gives a trustee in bankruptcy three years to decide what, if anything, to do about an interest in a property which is the home of the bankrupt, the bankrupt’s spouse or civil partner, or a former spouse or civil partner of the bankrupt and which forms part of the bankrupt’s estate.