On Wednesday, the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") reversed the lower courts' decision in the Yung Kee case¹ , holding that the Hong Kong court has jurisdiction to order the winding up of Yung Kee Holdings Limited (the "Company"), a holding company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and not registered in Hong Kong.

Given the nature of their businesses, shipping companies may be involved as respondents in arbitration proceedings in different jurisdictions. As arbitrations tend to be lengthy procedures, a claimant to such proceedings may want to explore whether there are any quicker routes they can take to recover their losses. One such option they might consider is bringing a winding up petition against the company.

Generally with a winding-up petition, if the petitioner is successful in obtaining a winding-up order, the petitioner will have its costs of the  proceedings. If, on the other hand, the petition is dismissed, then the petitioner has been  unsuccessful and it should pay the costs of the proceedings. We explore the Companies Court’s  treatment of costs in three recent decisions below.

From what Assets should a Petitioner have its Costs?

In the unusual case of Albert Edward Rodrigues v Associacao Portuguesa de Socorrous Mutuos (in liquidation) (HCMP 1391/2014), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ordered a permanent stay of a company’s creditors’ voluntary winding up which has technically been going for 25 years, and in so doing reminded us of the applicable principles and the fact sensitive nature of such applications.

Background

Under Hong Kong law, the courts’ jurisdiction is ordinarily territorial in nature. A plaintiff or applicant has to obtain permission (“leave”) of the court before it can validly serve a writ or other document initiating a legal action on a defendant or respondent located outside Hong Kong. For actions begun by writ, the procedures and criteria for applications for leave in this respect are set out under Order 11 of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”).

Did you know that dispositions of property of a solvent company made after the commencement of a winding-up will unlikely be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated that the disposition is not in the interests of the company?

The Court of Appeal has declined jurisdiction to wind up Yung Kee Holdings Limited (the "Company"), a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI"), upholding the decision of Harris J at first instance that the Company did not have "sufficient connection" with Hong Kong. 

The exercise of the court’s discretionary jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered overseas company has again come under judicial spotlight in the recent case of Re China Medical Technologies Inc. (HCCW 435/2012).

On a recent Mayer Brown JSM application (on behalf  of the Liquidators of one of the Lehman Brothers  entities) to reduce and expunge proofs of debt, the  Hong Kong High Court has ruled that creditors who  receive an overpayment of dividends due in respect of  a proof of debt which has been “improperly  admitted” (rule 96, Companies Winding-Up Rules)  must give credit for those overpayments before  receiving further dividends in the liquidation (Re  Lehman Brothers Commercial Corp Asia Ltd (“LBCCA”) [2014] HKEC 849) (“Proof Appl

The Court of First Instance in Hong Kong recently provided a timely reminder that the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company is an exorbitant one and therefore winding up petitions and applications for leave to serve them out of the Hong Kong jurisdiction must be properly thought through and drafted before the Court will consider giving leave to serve out, and they may be liable to be struck out entirely if not.