DAY GOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

HCAL 30/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 30 OF 2006

____________

BETWEEN
	DAY GOOD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	Applicant
and
	SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE	Respondent

____________

Before: Hon Lam J in Court

Date of Hearing: 7 May 2012

Date of Judgment: 7 May 2012

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

1. I think the best way to analyse this matter is to apply the principle in the case of Grovit v Doctor [1997] 1 WLR, 640, dealing with an applicant who demonstrably has no intention to proceed with the matter. It was held in that case that such conduct amounted to an abuse of process and on that ground the action can be struck out.

2. In the present case the Applicant as a company was deregistered on its own application in October 2011.  Actually there had been a long period of inaction since the last round of evidence filed in October 2006. 

3. The application for deregistration was made by a director of the company on 20 May 2011.  Although there was still a solicitor on the record acting for the Applicant after the deregistration, the Applicant’s solicitor indicated that they have lost contact with the person who had been giving instructions to the solicitors on behalf of the Applicant.  Despite repeated attempts on the part of the solicitor to get in touch with management of the Applicant, there has been no follow-up from the directors and officers of the company with regard to the proceedings.

4. As a result, the solicitor took out a summons on 20 April 2012 to apply for an order under Order 67 to cease acting for the Applicant. An order was granted by this court on 3 May.

5. Having regard to the circumstances of the matter, it is obvious to this court that the Applicant has no intention to proceed with the proceedings.  Irrespective of the dissolution of the company and whether the dissolution can be revived by reinstatement under section 291AB(2) of the Companies Ordinance, the proceedings should not be left in abeyance indefinitely.

6. The principle of Grovit v Doctor is directly applicable.  I would therefore strike out the proceedings and dismiss the application.

	(M H Lam)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance
	High Court

Miss M L Chang, GC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent