Re Nam Fong International Investment Ltd.

HCCW000205/2001

HCCW 205/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO. 205 OF 2001

____________

IN THE MATTER OF Nam Fong International Investment Limited and IN THE MATTER OF the Companies Ordinance (Cap.32) of the Laws of Hong Kong

____________

Coram: Hon Yuen J in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 May 2001

Date of Judgment: 14 May 2001

 

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

 

1. This petition is based on a judgment debt in the sum of about $16m. Judgment, upon a summary judgment application, was given against the Company in November 2000. A statutory demand was served in February 2001 and the petition was presented in March 2001.

2. One affirmation has been filed on behalf of the Company by a director, Mr Yeung, which was affirmed on 8 May 2001. In that affirmation, he said that in June 1999, the Company had entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Petitioner. There is exhibited a Chinese agreement together with an English translation dated 29 June 1999.

3. It is clear from the document that the matter agreed to be settled was a civil action which was High Court Action No. 1791 of 1999. This Settlement Agreement therefore relates to a different action and predates the judgment which was pronounced against the Company in November 2000 in Action No. 5994 of 2000.

4. In the course of submission this morning, I have been told that the Company had originally filed a Notice of Appeal in December 2000, but that Notice of Appeal was dismissed by consent. Counsel for the Company has said that that was because the Company did not have sufficient funds at that time to pay costs on account.

5. I have also been told that in December 2000, an application had been made by the Company for stay of execution pending appeal. However, that has been dismissed by the court.

6. In the circumstances, there appears to me to be no ground at all why the Company should not be wound up today. Counsel for the Company has said that an adjournment is required to file a further affidavit to explain why no steps have been taken after the issue of the petition and why the Company has still failed to prosecute any setting aside application or any application for stay of execution.

7. However, he says that there is no evidence at the moment that the Company now has the funds to prosecute the appeal. He has no knowledge of the Company's financial position, nor indeed is there any evidence before the court as to any possible merit of the Company's case in that action.

8. Accordingly, I see no reason why this matter should be further delayed and I will make the usual winding-up order.

 

 

	(MARIA YUEN)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court

 

Representation:

Mr Stanley Siu, instructed by Karbhari & Cham, for the Petitioner

Mr Wilson Lau Woon Sun, instructed by Christopher K Y Wong & Co., for the Company

Ms T Wong from the Official Receiver's Office