HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Companies Winding-up Proceedings2000

Re Hung Fung Holdings Ltd

Files (3)

29803-CH-2002-04-18

有關雄豐集團有限公司事宜

HTML content

HCCW000445B/2000

HCCW445/2000

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

民事司法管轄權

高院公司清盤案件編號2000年第445號

---------------------------

有關雄豐集團有限公司事宜
及
有關香港法例第32章《公司條例》的事宜

---------------------------

審理法官:高等法院原訟法庭法官朱芬齡

聆訊日期:2002年4月18日

判決日期:2002年4月18日

頒發判案書日期:2002年4月30日

-----------------

判案書

-----------------

1. 陳少平先生(“陳先生”)和余家珍小姐(“余小姐”)在2002年4月2日發出傳票,申請按《公司(清盤)規例》第128條規則,上訴破產管理署署長在2001年3月22日的第一次債權人延期會議中所作的裁決。本席經聆訊後頒令該傳票予以撤銷。現將聆訊時所口述的裁決理由記述如後。

案件背景

2. 兩名申請人均為雄豐集團有限公司(“清盤公司”)的股東。該公司在2000年11月27日被法庭頒令清盤。第一次債權人會議經三次延期後,最終在2001年3月22日舉行。破產管理署署長以公司臨時清盤人的身分,出任該次債權人會議的主席。當日出席會議者計有本案的呈請人,國華商業銀行(“國華銀行”)﹑中國光大集團有限公司(“光大公司”)和破產欠薪保障基金的代表。另外,清盤公司的其中三間子公司亦有派代表出席。該三間子公司分別為雄豐企業控股有限公司(“雄豐企業”)﹑雄豐工程有限公司(“雄豐工程”)和雄豐鋁業有限公司(“雄豐鋁業”)。在該次債權人會議上,雄豐企業由陳先生代表,而雄豐工程和雄豐鋁業則由余愛京小姐代表。

3. 這三間子公司均宣稱是該公司的債權人,並向破產管理署呈交了債權證明表。在2001年3月22日的債權人延期會議,破產管理署署長的代表經審閱這三間子公司所提交的文件後,拒絕讓它們在該次會議中進行投票。該次會議最終議決委任Mr Joseph Kiu Ching Lo和Mr Darach E. Haughey出任清盤公司的清盤人。會議同時議決成立一個審查委員會,由國華銀行和光大公司出任成員。

4. 陳先生和余小姐認為沒有讓該三間子公司出任審查委員會的成員,以及由光大公司提議的核數師出任清盤人都是不公平的。他們因此在本年4月2日提出本傳票。

本傳票申請

5. 陳先生和余小姐是按《公司(清盤)規則》第128條規則提出申請,要求上訴。余小姐是以該公司分攤人的身分作出申請。陳先生則是以雄豐企業﹑雄豐工程和雄豐鋁業的董事的身分代表這三間宣稱為債權人的子公司作出申請。

6. 陳先生和余小姐在他們的傳票中,要求上訴破產管理署署長在債權人延期會議中所作的下列決定,即:

(1) 委任清盤人,和

(2) 委任審查委員會的委員。

7. 查實當日債權人延期會議的上述兩項議決,乃是經出席又具投票權的債權人投票所作的決定。破產管理署署長代表僅出任會議的主席,沒有就此兩項事項作出投票。破產管理署署長的代表在債權人延期會議上所作的唯一決定,乃是就表決事宜而言,拒絕接納雄豐企業﹑雄豐工程和雄豐鋁業的債權證明表。

8. 明顯地,陳先生和余小姐的傳票內容並不正確。但有鑑於他們無律師代表,而且傳票指明申請是按《公司(清盤)規則》第128條規則作出,因此本席視本傳票為上訴破產管理署署長就表決事宜,拒絕接納雄豐企業﹑雄豐工程和雄豐鋁業的債權證明表的決定的申請。

適用的法律原則

9. 《公司(清盤)規則》第128條列明:

" 主席有權為就表決事宜而接納或拒絕任何債權證明表,但有關人士可就主席的決定而向法院上訴。主席如對應否接納或拒絕接納某份債權證明表存有疑問,則須標明該份債權證明表為遭反對的債權證明表,並容許有關債權人表決,但其表決在該項反對成立時須被宣布無效。"

10. 在處理按第128條規則提出的上訴申請時,法庭須就雙方提交的證據,裁斷宣稱的債權是否得以確立。法庭作出裁斷時,除卻考慮主席在作出決定時已有的證據外,亦可考慮訴訟各方在上訴時依法提交的證據:參閱Re a Company No.004539 of 1993 [1995] BCC116。在提出上訴時,上訴一方具有舉證的責任,他須證明主席的決定是錯誤的,和應予以推翻或更改:參閱Re Potts [1934] Ch 356和Re a Company No.004539 of 1993。

判決理由

11. 雄豐企業﹑雄豐工程和雄豐鋁業在2001年1月12日分別向破產管理署呈交了債權證明書,向清盤公司申索分別為港幣84,696,913.11元,21,926,941.18元和9,832,848.00元的欠債(統稱“該等債務”)。陳先生和余小姐指該等債務可從下列文件得以證實,即:

(1) 清盤公司的資產負債狀況說明書,

(2) 雄豐企業﹑雄豐工程和雄豐鋁業截至2000年12月31日的核數報告,和

(3) 黃健麟會計師事務所發出,日期為2001年3月22日的信件。

12. 破產管理署署長的代表鍾李少玲在其2002年4月16日作出的誓章第6段中指出,她在2001年3月22日作出拒絕清盤公司三間子公司的債權證明表之前,曾參閱上述所列的三類文件。陳先生在本庭聆訊時卻指稱該三間子公司的2000年核數報告是在債權人延期會議後才提交予破產管理署。此項事實的爭議對是次上訴要解決的問題無關宏旨。不論破產管理署署長在作出決定前曾否考慮這些核數報告,本庭在判決本傳票申請時仍得對它們加以考慮。

13. 就上述三類文件是否足以證實該等債務這點,本庭現逐一處理。

(1) 資產負債狀況說明書

14. 在In re Vanlaun Ex parte Pattullo [1907] 1 KB 155一案中,法庭指出在決定是否接納債權證明表時,清盤人是有責任要求宣稱是債權人者提供令人滿意的證據,以證實有關債項確是存在。因此即使有關的債務為經法庭判定的債務,清盤人亦有權根查求證到底 :參閱該案例第163 頁。在此原則下,雖然清盤公司的資產負債狀況說明書載有該等債務,而且亦已經陳先生宣誓確認,破產管理署署長也不一定要全盤接納其所述內容。

15. 再者,陳先生具有多重身份。他既是清盤公司的分攤人和董事,也是三間宣稱是債權人的子公司的股東和董事。而且,在資產負債狀況說明書中,對該三筆宣稱債務並沒有具體的描述和說明,僅稱之為“current account”: 參閱G表第1.至3.項。與此同時,該三間子公司呈交的債權說明表亦沒有按《公司(清盤)規則》第124條規則的規定,就該等債務是在何時和如何招致提供詳情,亦未有提供可證實債權的文件的詳情。陳先生在陳詞時解釋該等債務乃是累計所得。縱使如此,債權列明表也應說明該等債務是源自甚麼賬項,是從何時和如何累積計算。

16. 基於上述情況,本席不認同清盤公司的資產負債狀況說明書足以構成令人滿意的證據,可證實該等債務確有存在。

(2) 三間子公司的核數報告

17. 雄豐企業、雄豐工程和雄豐鋁業截至2000年12月31日的核數報告分別載有清盤公司聲稱欠它們的債項。然而負責核數的黃健麟會計師事務所在三份核數報告均作出了保留意見。尤為重要的是會計師指出他們未能取得核數所需的全部資料和闡釋,以及他們無法評定三間子公司的賬目記錄是否妥善。

18. 陳先生和余小姐的陳詞指黃健麟會計師事務所曾告知他們,核數報告中的保留意見部份非為針對三間公司,作出保留僅是為符合會計師的專業要求。申請人這項解說無助他們本傳票的申請。不爭的事實是會計師在三間子公司的核數報告都作出保留意見。從這些保留意見得見,會計師對於核數報告所載賬項的真確性和準確性,未有加以肯定。簡而言之,三間子公司的會計報告所載有關清盤公司的欠債未有得到核數師的確認。

19. 在此情況下,這三份核數報告不能構成令人滿意的證據,以核證該等債務的存在。

(3) 黃健麟會計師事務所發出的信件

20. 誠然,黃健麟會計師事務所在2001年3月22日致破產管理署署長的信件中,確認根據雄豐企業和雄豐工程的賬目記錄,清盤公司截至2000年12月31日尚欠該兩間公司港幣84,696,913.00元和21,926,941.00元。在衡量和考慮會計師這個說法時,本席不能忽視會計師同時也在三間子公司的核數報告中,對三間公司的賬目記錄是否妥善一點持保留意見。

21. 再者,鍾李少玲女士在其誓章中表示她從2001年3月8日與會計師事務所的一位關先生的電話交談中,得悉會計師事務所不曾參閱與該等債款有關的文件或憑單。

22. 有見及此,黃健麟會計師事務所2001年3月22日發出的信件亦不足以證實該等債務的存在。

總結

23. 鑑於上述理由,本席認為陳先生和余小姐未能成功舉證,證實該等債務確有存在。破產管理署署長在債權人延期會議,就表決事宜而拒絕接納雄豐企業、雄豐工程和雄豐鋁業的債權證明書乃是正確的。

24. 本席因此駁回陳先生和余小姐本傳票的上訴申請。本席同時頒令按訴訟常規,陳先生和余小姐須自行負責破產管理署因是次申請所招致的訟費;如雙方不能就數額達成協議,訟費可交法庭評定。

(朱芬齡)
高等法院原訟法庭法官

申請人 :陳少平先生、余愛珍女士無律師代表。

破產管理署由林梁曼華律師代表出席。

19081-EN-2002-04-09

Re Hung Fung Holdings Ltd

HTML content

HCCW445/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO.445 OF 2000

-------------------

IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance, Cap.32

AND

IN THE MATTER of Hung Fung Holdings Ltd

-------------------

 

Coram: Hon Chu J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 9 April 2002

Date of Decision: 9 April 2002

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1. There is before me an application to stay the liquidation of Hung Fung Holdings Ltd ("the Company"), which was ordered to be wound up on 27 November 2000. Mr Darach E.Haughey and Mr Joseph Kiu Ching Lo ("the Liquidators"), both of Messrs Deleitte Touche Tohmatsu were appointed by the order of this court dated 12 September 2001. The present summons was issued on 2 April 2002 by Mr Chan Siu Ping ("the Applicant).

Background

2. The background of this case has been set out in details in the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 22 March 2002 and in my Reasons for Decision handed down on 9 October 2001. I do not repeat them here.

3. The major events that have occurred since the Court of Appeal's judgment can be summarised as follows. On 26 March 2002, the Liquidators applied by summons under section 211 of the Companies Ordinance for a court order that the Applicant in his capacity as a director of the Company, produce and deliver to the Liquidators the books and records of the Company. Prior to that, the Liquidators had on 17 October 2001 given notice under section 211 and rule 67 of the Companies (Winding up) Rules ("the Rules") requiring the Applicant to produce and deliver the books and records of the Company to them. The request was refused by the Applicant for the reason that his appeal to the Court of Appeal against my decision made on 12 September 2001 was pending.

4. Then on 2 April 2002, the Applicant together with another contributory, Madam Yu Ka Chun, took out a summons seeking to appeal against the Official Receiver's decision pursuant to Rule 128 of the Rules ("the Rule 128 Application"). The appeal was directed against the decision of the Official Receiver, as the chairman of the adjourned First Creditors' Meeting, rejecting the proofs of three creditors for the purpose of voting at the Creditors' meeting. The adjourned First Creditors' Meeting was held on 22 March 2001. The three creditors whose proofs had been rejected are the subsidiaries of the Company ("the Three Subsidiaries").

5. Also on 2 April 2002, the Applicant issued the present summons ("the Summons") asking for an interim stay of the liquidation carried out by the Liquidators pending the determination of the Rule 128 Application.

The application for stay

6. It would appear that section 209(1) of the Companies Ordinance will be relevant to this application, though the legal basis on which the application was made has not been set out in the Summons.

7. The Summons is also silent on the capacity of the Applicant in making the application. The Applicant is both a director and a contributory of the Company. But as a director will have no locus standi to make such an application, I take it and will proceed on the basis that the Applicant made the stay application in his capacity as a contributory of the Company.

8. The stay application is opposed by the petitioner, China Everbright Holdings Co. Ltd, a creditor of the Company ("China Everbright"), the Liquidators and also the Official Receiver.

Reasons for decision

9. The legal principles governing an application for stay of winding-up proceedings, whether interim or permanent, have been set out in a number of decided cases. The guiding principle is that before the court will grant a stay, it has to be satisfied that there are very good reasons and that it is right to do so. A heavy burden is casted on an applicant : Re Lowston Ltd [1991] BCLC 570.

10. The only reason put forward by the Applicant in support of an interim stay is that the Rule 128 Application is pending, and that the application has strong merits and is likely to succeed. The Applicant says that if the application were successful, then the decision of the Official Receiver to reject the proofs of the Three Subsidiaries for voting at the First Creditors' Meeting will be reversed and the Committee of Inspection and the liquidators may be differently constituted.

11. Against that reason, there are four factors that I consider to be relevant and ought to be taken into account. I shall deal with them in turns.

12. Firstly, the validity of the winding-up order which was made as early as 27 November 2000, is not in issue. Therefore prima facie there is no reason to delay or withhold the winding-up proceedings : see Re Lowston Ltd at page 572.

13. Secondly, there is no evidence filed and there is also no challenge made to the integrity of the Liquidators and their fitness to carry out their office. The Applicant indicates at the hearing that he opposes the appointment of the Liquidators because they were proposed by China Everbright when the status of China Everbright as creditor and the amount of its proof are under challenge. I had in my earlier Decision handed down on 9 October 2001 at paragraph 10 pointed out that this is purely a fear harboured by the Applicant, and that there is no material to support the fear that the Liquidators will not act fairly in the discharge of their duties. The fact is that since their appointment in September 2001, there is no allegation that they are unfit or have acted in preference to or in favour of China Everbright. Given that the integrity and fitness and priority of the Liquidators are not in issue, there is no reason not to allow the Liquidators to continue with the liquidation.

14. Thirdly, if the Rule 128 Application were to be successful, the result is that the decision of the Official Receiver at the adjourned First Creditors' Meeting will be overturned. This will lead to a fresh creditors' meeting being convened. At the new creditors' meeting, it is possible that the creditors will resolve to appoint a different liquidator and/or a new Committee of Inspection. If indeed the new creditors' meeting were to resolve to appoint a different liquidator, the approval of the court has to be sought. In deciding whether to appoint a new liquidator, the court will have regard to a number of considerations including, for example, the desirability and justifications for appoint new liquidators and also the implications on the costs of liquidation. The court may or may not remove the present liquidators. In other words, even though the new creditors' meeting may resolve to appoint a different liquidator, assuming that the Rule 128 Application is successful, it does not necessarily result in the removal of the Liquidators. This being the case, there is no reason why the Liquidators should not be allowed to continue with the liquidation that is already underway.

15. Fourthly, the Liquidators' Report dated 16 March 2002 disclosed matters that point to the need of investigating into the affairs of the Company. There is, among other things, suggestion that the assets of the Company may have been disposed of despite the making of the winding-up order. This is a compelling consideration operating against the grant of stay : Lai Kam Hung v. Guangdong (Hong Kong) International Ltd [1995] 2 HKLR 211, 213-214.

Conclusion

16. The decision to stay winding-up proceedings involves the exercise of the court's discretion. In exercising its discretion, the court should have regard to all the relevant factors. In the present case, weighing the reason put forward in support of the stay application against the four factors that I have identified, the discretion can only be exercised against the grant of stay. For the reasons that I have indicated, the Summons is dismissed.

17. There is no reason why costs should not follow event. There is accordingly a cost order in favour of the petitioner, China Everbright, the Liquidators and the Official Receiver against the Applicant personally, to be taxed if not agreed. There is no reason for the Liquidators' costs to be borne even partially by the Company's assets. The Liquidators' costs is therefore to be paid on an indemnity basis.

( C. Chu )
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

Representation:

The Applicant, Mr Chan Siu Ping, appear in preson

Mr D Ting of Messrs Siao, Wen & Leung, for the Liquidators

Ms Janine Cheung, instructed by Messrs Tsang, Chan & Wong, for The China State Bank Ltd, the Petitioner

Mr S.F. Ng of Messrs Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo, for China Everbright Holdings Co. Ltd, a creditor of the Company

Ms Phyllis Mckenna of Official Receiver's Office

19977-EN-2001-09-12

Re Hung Fung Holdings Ltd.

HTML content

HCCW000445/2000

HCCW445/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS
NO.445 OF 2000

----------------------

IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance, Cap.32

AND

IN THE MATTER of Hung Fung Holdings Limited

-----------------------

Coram: Hon Chu J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 12 September 2001

Date of Decision: 12 September 2001

Date of handing down of Reasons for Decision: 9 October 2001

--------------------------------------------------------

REASONS FOR DECISION

--------------------------------------------------------

1. This is the application of the Official Receiver and Provisional Liquidator for determination of the differences between the resolutions of the meetings of the creditors and of the contributories over the appointment of liquidators and the composition of the Committee of Inspection. The application was made pursuant to section 206(2) of the Companies Ordinance, Cap.32.

Background

2. A creditor's petition to wind up Hung Fung Holdings Limited (雄豐集團有限公司) ("the Company") was presented on 20 May 2000. It was presented by the China State Bank, Limited ("the Petitioner"). A winding-up order was made on 27 November 2000.

3. The First Meeting of the Contributories ("the Contributories Meeting") was held on 12 January 2001 and the First Meeting of the Creditors ("the Creditors Meeting) was held on 22 March 2001. The Contributories Meeting resolved that Mr Matthew Finbarr O'Driscoll and Mr Stephen Liu Yiu Keung, both of Messrs Ernst & Young, be appointed as joint and several liquidators of the Company. The Creditors Meeting, on the other hand, resolved that Mr Joseph Kin Ching Lo and Mr Darach E. Haughey, both of Messrs Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, be appointed as joint and several liquidators. Both meetings resolved that there should be a Committee of Inspection ("CI") but they differ as to the composition. At the Contributories Meeting, it was resolved that the CI should comprise Mr Chan Siu Ping ("Mr Chan"), Miss Yu Ka Chun ("Miss KC Yu") and the representative of Hung Fung Glass Development Limited ("HF Glass"). Mr Chan and Miss KC Yu are husband and wife. They are both contributories of the Company. The Creditors Meeting, on the other hand, resolved that the CI should comprise the representatives of the Petitioner and China Everbright Holdings Company Limited ("China Everbright"), a creditor of the Meeting.

4. As a result of the differences, the Official Receiver took out the present application on 29 June 2001. The application was accompanied by the Official Receiver's Report dated 29 June 2001 ("the OR Report").

5. According to the OR Report, apart from the Petitioner and China Everbright, another four companies had also lodged proofs of debt against the Company. They are Hung Fung Enterprises Holdings Limited (雄豐企業控股有限公司) ("HF Enterprises"), Hung Fung Engineering Limited (雄豐工程有限公司) ("HF Engineering"), Hung Fung Aluminium Works Limited (雄豐鋁業有限公司) ("HF Aluminium") and HF Glass. HF Glass had on 5 March 2001 withdrawn its proof of debt. Mr Chan is a shareholder and director of HF Enterprises and HF Aluminium, and a director of HF Engineering. At the hearing, Mr Chan informs the Court that these four companies are the subsidiaries of the Company.

6. At the hearing, the Official Receiver had made known the following additional information. Firstly, Messrs Ernst & Young was the auditor of HF Enterprises in the year 1994 to 1995. It had been invited to be the auditor of HF Enterprises and the Company in 1997, but the offer was declined. Secondly, according to the Statement of Affairs dated 6 March 2001 filed by Mr Chan, the assets of the Company were estimated to be in the sum of HK$181,900,110.29 and the liabilities were given as HK$171,583,096.46. The total amount of the proofs of debt received, however, comes to HK$190,992,184.96 and US$170,078.37. The Official Receiver, on the other hand, has only collected about HK$24,437 odd worth of assets.

Appointment of Liquidators

7. Both the Petitioner and China Everbright stand by the determination of the Creditors Meeting over the choice of liquidators. The Petitioner objects the appointment of Mr O'Driscoll and Mr Liu on the basis that their firm, Messrs Ernst & Young, had been the Company's auditor. According to the Official Receiver, that is not quite correct. Nevertheless, it is true that Ernst & Young had been the auditor of one of the proving creditors within the Hung Fung group of companies.

8. Mr Chan indicates that he does not insist on the appointment of practitioners from Messrs Ernst & Young. He, however, wishes that the liquidators be appointed from the Official Receiver's Administrative Panel of Insolvency Practitioners for court winding-up. He objects to the appointment of Mr Lo and Mr Haughey as he considers that they may act partially because they are nominated by China Everbright.

9. The authorities have established that the Court has a wide discretion over the question of appointment of liquidators : Re Dunquil Pty Ltd (1985) 9 ACLR 950 and Re Australian National Finance Ltd (1992) 7 ACSR 697. An important consideration in the exercise of the discretion is the wishes of the major creditors : Sections 287(1) and (2) of Companies Ordinance, see also Re Goldcone Properties Ltd [1999] 4 HKC 602.

10. In the present case, the wishes of the creditors are reflected by the resolution of the Creditors Meeting. Mr Chan's objection that because they are nominated by China Everbright, whose proof of debt is disputed by the contributories, Mr Lo and Mr Haughey may not act fairly has no sound basis. It is purely a fear harboured by Mr Chan and there is no material to support it. There is also nothing to suggest that Mr Lo and Mr Haughey are not fit and proper persons to be appointed. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Court should give weight to the wishes of the creditors. Mr Lo and Mr Haughey are to be appointed as joint and several liquidators of the Company.

Appointment of Committee of Inspection

11. The starting point is to note that upon the withdrawal of its proof of debt, HF Glass ceases to be eligible to be a member of the CI. As to the other members nominated by the Creditors Meeting and the Contributories Meeting, it is important to bear in mind the extent of their respective interests in the liquidation of the Company.

12. From the information provided to the Court by the Official Receiver at the hearing, it can be seen that the Company, as it now stands, is insolvent. It is therefore likely that the creditors will not recover their debts in full. Given that the rights of the contributories rank after that of the creditors, it is probable that the contributories will not receive any distribution or dividends. Considering that the main functions and powers of the CI are to act with the liquidators and to oversee the liquidators in the exercise of their powers : see sections 206(1) and 200(1) of Companies Ordinance, I am of the view that it is not necessary for the CI of the Company to consist of the contributories or their representatives when the contributories are unlikely to be paid out of the estate of the Company : see also Re James, Exparte Cowra Processors Pty Ltd (1995) 13 ACLC 1582.

13. Mr Chan disagrees that the Company is insolvent. He says that the Company has assets that worth approximately HK$180 million and the debt owed by the Company to creditors other than its subsidiaries is only HK$40 million odd. He also points out that China Everbright has at the same time instituted HCA10150/2000 against the Company and five other individuals, including himself and Miss KC Yu. The amount claimed is HK$68 million. The individual defendants are sued as guarantors of the Company's liabilities. Mr Chan further hands up an Order dated 28 June 2001 showing that China Everbright had obtained summary judgment against the five guarantors for the sums of HK$45 million and HK$14,340 together with interest. Mr Chan is appealing against the judgment and the appeal is to be heard on 4 October 2001. It is common ground that the part of the action against the Company has been stayed as a result of the winding-up proceedings. Mr Chan says that, in the circumstances, the amount of China Everbright's proof of debt is exaggerated and that it is disputed.

14. In my view, even if China Everbright's proof of debt should be reduced, the Company is still insolvent based upon the information revealed by the Official Receiver. When Mr Chan's claims that the Company is solvent, he has disregarded the debts owed to the other companies within the Hung Fung group. The analysis on the prospect of the contributories being paid out of the estate and the conclusion that they are unlikely to receive a distribution remain good. Accordingly, in determining the differences between the Creditors Meeting and the Contributories Meeting over the composition of the CI, I come to the conclusion that the resolution of the Creditors Meeting should prevail.

Costs

15. The Official Receiver applies for their costs of the application be allowed as an expense of the liquidation and be paid out of the assets of the Company. The Petitioner and China Everbright also apply for their costs to be borne by the Company.

16. I consider that the application has been properly brought by the Official Receiver. Similarly, the Petitioner and China Everbright are entitled to appear and make representations to the Court on the determination of the differences. The costs incurred are properly expended for the purpose of the administration of the liquidation. They should therefore be met by the assets of the Company.

Conclusion

17. The orders I make are as follows :

(1) Mr Joseph Kin Ching Lo and Mr Darach E. Haughey, both of Messrs Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu be appointed the joint and several liquidators of the Company.

(2) There be a committee of inspection comprising The China State Bank Limited and China Everbright Holdings Company Limited.

(3) The Official Receiver's costs of this application be an expense of liquidation and be paid out of the Company's assets.

(4) The costs of the Petitioner and China Everbright Holdings Company Limited of this application be paid out of the Company's assets.

(C. Chu)
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

Representation:

Mrs Christine Sit for the Official Receiver

Miss M Kwan of Messrs Tsang, Chan & Wong, for the Petitioner

Mr John Ng of Messrs Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo, for China Everbright Holdings Co. Ltd, a creditor of the Company

Mr Chan Siu Ping and Miss Yu Ka Chun, contributories of the Company, unrepresented and appeared in person

Please refer to CACV2667/2001 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Please refer to CACV2667/2001 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Please refer to CACV2667/2001 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.