RE PARKFIELD INDUSTRIES LTD

HCMP 2239/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2239 OF 2010

____________

IN THE MATTER of KOSOKU OFFICE SUPPLIES LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2240/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2240 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of UNIWELL ELECTRONICS LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2241/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2241 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of FEDERAL INDTEX COMPANY LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2242/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2242 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of LUCKSWELL INVESTMENT LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2243/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2243 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of WAVEPEARL LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2244/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2244 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of CHEER FORTUNE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2245/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2245 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of GOODEARTH FASHION LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2247/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2247 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of DINWELL INDUSTRIAL (H.K.) LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2248/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2248 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of HARMONY LIGHTING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2249/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2249 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of PARKFIELD INDUSTRIES LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2250/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2250 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of K.C.K. GARMENT FACTORY LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2251/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2251 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of FU PO KNITTING FACTORY LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2252/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2252 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of LEADFRAME TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2253/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2253 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of SUI CHONG CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2254/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2254 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of BAGUIO CLEANING SERVICES COMPANY LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2255/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2255 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of CHEUNG KEE SEA PRODUCTS LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2256/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2256 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of THOMAS LO CONTRACTING LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2257/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2257 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of GREAT UNION GARMENT LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2258/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2258 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of KAWAH LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2259/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2259 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of JASUKA INDUSTRIES (HKSAR) LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2260/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2260 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of HUA HAN INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________

And

HCMP 2261/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2261 OF 2010
____________

IN THE MATTER of XIANGLONG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

and

IN THE MATTER of Section 80 and Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance

____________
(Heard together)

Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 1 February 2011

Date of Reasons for Decision: 16 February 2011

_________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_________________________________

1. I have before me 22 applications by DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited pursuant to section 86 of the Companies Ordinance for an extension of 28 days for the time to register twenty-two charges taken by way of assignment of a series of life insurancepolicies the beneficiaries of which are 22 companies.

2. Each application is supported by an affirmation of Mr Ngo Tiong Seng Kimber who is a manager of the Applicant. As Mr Ngo explains,in each case the failure to register the assignments as a charge arose as a result of a failure to appreciate the requirements ofsection 80(2) (a) and (f) of the Companies Ordinance.

3. The applications were originally put before the Master who refused to grant them on the ground that each application needed to besupported by evidence filed by an officer of the relevant company deposing to the fact that no winding-up order has been made, resolutionfor winding-up passed, no winding-up petition is pending, no resolution has been passed for winding-up, that the company continuesto carry on business and that no judgment has been obtained against the company which remains unsatisfied. The Master did so, becauseof the contents of the note at paragraph 102/2/36 of Vol. 1 of the Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2011. It also appears from correspondencebetween the Applicant’s solicitors and the Master, the application being dealt with on the papers, that the Master also thoughtthat Re Ashpurton Estates Limited [1983] Ch 3 110 supported this practice. The Applicants’ solicitor, who appeared before me, submitted that the authorities referred to inthe note to the Hong Kong Civil Procedure and Re Ashpurton Estates Limited are not authority that in every case a company whose assets are to be charged must give evidence addressing the question of solvencyand the possibility of a winding up. She referred me to the decision of Lord Justice Romer at page 571 in Re M.I.G. Trust Limited [1933] 1 Ch 542, in which the judge expressly states that such a practice would appear to have sprung up although it is not necessary.

4. It seems to me that it is not necessary in every case for evidence to be filed by an assignor company dealing with its solvencyand the prospects of it being wound up, and to that extent the note in the Hong Kong Civil Procedure is incorrect. What is requiredis that an applicant files evidence explaining the circumstances in which the charges failed to be registered and stating that ithas no reason to believe there are presently any prospects of the assignor being put into liquidation. This is what has happenedin the present case following a direction from me that such evidence should be filed.

5. I therefore, grant the order sought for an extension of 28 days from 2 February 2011 for filing of the assignment at the CompaniesRegistry for registration.

(J. Harris)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Miss Lai Lee of Messrs Wilkinson & Grist for the Applicant (in all cases)