清盤人登記股份的費用承擔？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHEN YUNG NGAI KENNETH 及 CHAN MEI MEI (破產人 HO YUK WAH DAVID 的破產受託人) 訴 HO YUK WAH DAVID (破產人) 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：吳嘉輝法官 (Hon Ng J) - 判決日期：2024年8月14日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於2020年9月28日高等法院原訟法庭的一項判決，該判決裁定第一被告 HO YUK WAH DAVID 在2007年6月後仍實益擁有並控制第六被告 ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED。法院當時命令第二被告及第五被告將其在第六被告的股份轉讓予原告（破產受託人），並賦予「有權申請」條款。現時，原告申請命令第六被告的清盤人登記原告為第六被告的唯一股東，並提供相關文件。清盤人反對此申請，理由是申請程序不當，且不願承擔因登記股份而產生的費用，因為第六被告已資不抵債且無任何資產。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於，在先前的法院命令已要求轉讓股份的情況下，清盤人是否有義務在沒有預先支付相關費用和開支的情況下，將破產受託人登記為公司的唯一股東。清盤人認為申請程序不當，且不應承擔因公司資不抵債而產生的登記費用。原告則認為，先前的「有權申請」條款應涵蓋股份登記所需的一切必要步驟。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定，先前的判決中「有權申請」條款的目的是為了讓各方在出現分歧時，能夠執行法院的命令。股份轉讓後，若不將受託人登記為股東，則轉讓將毫無意義。因此，所有必要步驟，包括股份登記，均應涵蓋在內。法官認為清盤人原則上不反對登記，其主要顧慮是費用問題。由於第六被告已無資產，法官同意清盤人不應自掏腰包支付費用，因此命令原告承擔秘書公司的費用及雜費，上限為港幣15,000元。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭批准原告的申請，命令清盤人於28天內登記原告為第六被告的唯一股東，並提供相關文件。原告須向清盤人償付秘書公司的費用及雜費，上限為港幣15,000元。法庭駁回清盤人對申請提出的反對理由。此外，法庭命令第六被告的清盤人須親自向原告支付港幣110,000元的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了「有權申請」(liberty to apply) 條款的實用性，旨在確保法院命令的有效執行。法官批評了雙方因訟費爭議而浪費法庭時間的行為，指出若各方能合理行事，許多爭議可透過同意令解決。判決亦明確了在公司資不抵債且無資產的情況下，相關費用應由申請方承擔，而非清盤人個人承擔，但清盤人若無理反對申請，仍可能被判支付個人訟費。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: CHEN YUNG NGAI KENNETH and CHAN MEI MEI (trustees-in-bankruptcy of the 1st Defendant) v HO YUK WAH DAVID (a bankrupt) and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Ng J - Date of Judgment: 14 August 2024 ### Factual Background This case arises from a previous judgment of the Court of First Instance on 28 September 2020, which found that the 1st Defendant, HO YUK WAH DAVID, beneficially owned and controlled the 6th Defendant, ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, after June 2007. The court then ordered the 2nd and 5th Defendants to transfer their shares in the 6th Defendant to the Plaintiffs (the trustees-in-bankruptcy) and included a "liberty to apply" provision. The Plaintiffs now apply for an order directing the Liquidators of the 6th Defendant to register the Plaintiffs as the sole shareholders of the 6th Defendant and provide relevant documents. The Liquidators oppose this application, arguing that the application was not pursued in the proper forum and that they should not bear the costs associated with share registration, as the 6th Defendant is insolvent and has no assets. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute is whether, following a previous court order for share transfer, the Liquidators are obliged to register the trustees-in-bankruptcy as the sole shareholders of the company without the related expenses and fees being provided for. The Liquidators argued that the application was in the wrong forum and that they should not incur costs for an insolvent company with no assets. The Plaintiffs contended that the previous "liberty to apply" provision should cover all necessary steps for share registration. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that the purpose of the "liberty to apply" provision in the previous judgment was to enable parties to implement the court's order in case of disagreement. It would be meaningless to order the transfer of shares without registering the trustees as shareholders. Therefore, all necessary steps, including registration, are covered. The judge noted that the Liquidators did not object in principle to the registration, with their main concern being costs. As the 6th Defendant had no assets, the judge agreed it would be unreasonable to expect the Liquidators to pay out of their own pocket, and thus ordered the Plaintiffs to reimburse the secretarial firm's costs and disbursements, capped at HK$15,000. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court granted the Plaintiffs' application, ordering the Liquidators to register the Plaintiffs as the sole shareholders of the 6th Defendant within 28 days and provide relevant documents. The Plaintiffs are to reimburse the Liquidators for the secretarial firm's costs and disbursements, capped at HK$15,000. The Liquidators' grounds of opposition were rejected. Furthermore, the Liquidators of the 6th Defendant were ordered to personally pay the Plaintiffs costs of HK$110,000, to be assessed summarily but not on an indemnity basis. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the practical utility of a "liberty to apply" provision in ensuring effective implementation of court orders. The judge criticized both parties for wasting court time over costs disputes, suggesting that many issues could be resolved by consent if parties acted reasonably. The decision also clarifies that in cases of insolvent companies with no assets, related expenses should be borne by the applicant, not the liquidators personally, though liquidators may still be ordered to pay personal costs if their opposition is unreasonable. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.