Re King Pacific International Holdings Ltd.

Court:High Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:HCMP1039/2000
Judgment Date:13 Oct 2000
HCMP001039/2000 XCHRX RE KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.

HCMP001039/2000

HCMP1039/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.1039 OF 2000

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

IN THE MATTER OF KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER OF Section 168A of the Companies Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong

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

Coram: Hon Burrell J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 10 October 2000

Date of Decision: 13 October 2000

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

D E C I S I O N

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

On 13 March 2000, three summons were due to be heard before Le Pichon J. All matters except costs were agreed. The three summons were (i) the 2nd respondent's summons to strike out the petition, (ii) the petitioners' summons for leave to discontinue the proceedings, and (iii) the petitioners' summons to withdraw the petition.

The petition was withdrawn, the proceedings discontinued and therefore the summons to strike out was also withdrawn.

This morning's hearing has been solely in relation to costs.

1. Costs as between the petitioners and the 1st respondent (the Company)

In view of correspondence exchanged between the parties, the petitioners accept that the 1st respondent is entitled to its costs from 6 March 2000. The 1st respondent contends that it is entitled to its costs prior to that date as well.

I am satisfied that prior to 6 March 2000, "the Company" could have and should have pursued a passive role in relation to the petition. I order that there be a costs order in favour of the 1st respondent for costs incurred since 6 March 2000. Prior to 6 March 2000, there be no order as to costs.

2. Costs as between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent

The 2nd respondent submits it is entitled to its costs on two grounds. Firstly, because of the general rule that costs follow the event. The "event" here being the petitioners' discontinuance. Secondly, because had the matter been pursued, the petitioners were bound to fail.

The bulk of the submissions made in this costs hearing related to the second ground. Mr Jason Pow submits that the petitioners had no jurisdiction to bring a petition under section 168A of the Companies Ordinance because that section does not apply to an "overseas company". He submits, succinctly, that an overseas company is not a company as defined under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial