Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

In Re Simpson Development Investment (Hk) Co. Ltd

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in 5 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date23 November 1998
Citation[1999] 1 HKLRD 202
Judgement NumberHCCW422/1998
Subject MatterCompanies Winding-up Proceedings
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCCW000422A/1998 IN RE SIMPSON DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT (HK) CO. LTD.

HCCW000422A/1998

HCCW 422/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP NO.CW 422 OF 1998

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

IN THE MATTER OF SIMPSON DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT (HK) COMPANY LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER OF the Companies Ordinance Cap.32 of the Laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

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

Coram : The Hon Mrs Justice Le Pichon in Court

Date of Hearing : 23 November 1998

Date of Judgment : 23 November 1998

Date of Handing Down of Reasons : 30 November 1998

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

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

1. At the hearing of the petition on 23 November 1998, it was ordered that the Company be wound up. The reasons appear below.

2. By Order dated 9 November 1998, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited ("the Petitioner") was substituted as petitioner in place of K. and R. Wong Construction Company Limited (In Liquidation). Leave was also granted to the Petitioner to amended the petition.

3. The amended petition is a creditor's petition. Paragraph 9 of the amended petition set out the text of a letter dated 23 April 1998 ("the Letter") to the Company from the solicitors for the Petitioner demanding repayment of all sums advanced by way of general banking facilities and due under a Mortgage dated 18 July 1996 as well as vacant possession of the properties subject to the Mortgage ("the Properties"). The amount then outstanding was in excess of $47 million. The letter further stated that failing repayment by 28 April 1998, proceedings would be issued against the Company for recovery of all sums outstanding, interest and legal costs as well as possession of the Properties. The amount outstanding and due to the Petitioner as at the date of 6 November 1998 was in excess of $52 million.

4. According to valuations made as at 29 July 1998 the Properties have an aggregate value of $12.6 million. Even if there has been any fluctuation in the value of the Properties between July and the present time, the unsecured portion of the amount owing to the Petitioner is still significant, being of the order of $39 million.

5. Counsel for the Company opposed the petition on the ground that there has been no statutory demand made within section 178(1)(a) of Cap.32. Mr Mui submitted that the Letter was "just a simple demand letter". So far as I was able to understand his submission, for the presumption to arise under section 178(1), there has to be a reference to a period of 21 days for payment. Apart from that, I was unable to discern from Mr Mui's submission the essential features of a statutory demand (i.e. a demand within section 178(1)(a)) said to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Re Dayang Construction and Engineering Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 June 2002
    ...only in the context of a company failing or neglecting to pay a debt within that period: Re Simpson Devp Investment (HK) Co Ltd [1999] 1 HKLRD 202 followed. It is also not a legal imposition of s 254(2)(a), express or implied, that the creditor must indicate on the face of the demand the im......
  • Synergy Lighting Ltd v The Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)
    • 18 September 2020
    ...wound up: Bozell Asia (Holding) Ltd v CAL International Ltd & another [1997] HKLRD 1, 7; Re Simpson Development Investment (HK) Co Ltd [1999] 1 HKLRD 202; Cheong Yip Finance (Hong Kong) Ltd v Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd [1979] HKLR 558. Accordingly, the fact that section 178(1)(a) is not satisf......
  • 深圳巿均翔房地產經紀有限公司 v Hongkong Zhongxing Group Co Ltd
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • 8 March 2012
    ...Speakers Ltd [2004] 3 HKLRD 502, per Tang J at paragraphs 50 to 51 of the judgment, and Re Simpson Devp Investment (HK) Co Ltd [1999] 1 HKLRD 202, per Le Pichon J at pages 21. These authorities establish that it is open to the court to infer that a company is insolvent where there is eviden......
  • Ricco (International) Co Ltd v Uni-harvest International Ltd
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)
    • 22 January 2020
    ...it: Re Hawkins Development Ltd,HCCW 215/2007, unreported, 21 August 2009, at §§3-4, Kwan J; Re Simpson Devp Investment (HK) Co Ltd [1999] 1 HKLRD 202 at 204G-J (Le Pichon J as she then 37. While referring in part to s.327(4)(a) of the Ordinance, the Petition in its present form is in my vie......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT