RE LAW SIU LUN

RE LAW SIU LUN

The court found no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: contemporaneous text messages and seven receipts from Funing supported the Petitioner’s loan claim; the Debtor's later unparticularised oral agreement allegation was inconsistent with documentary evidence (EM Form showing employment with Funing) and raised late without explanation; prior HCSD application was dismissed as out of time. Accordingly a usual bankruptcy order was appropriate.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2364
Parties
Petitioner: DIMENSION ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY LIMITED; Debtor: LAW SIU LUN (羅少麟); Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2026
Case Number
HCB8176/2025
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Bankruptcy Petition Hearing (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Usual bankruptcy order made against the Debtor in favour of the Petitioner with costs to the Petitioner
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Setting Aside Statutory Demand, Debt Recovery, Oral Agreement, Bona Fide Dispute, Bankruptcy Rules (rule 68)
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Contract Statutory Demand Setting Aside Statutory Demand Debt Recovery Oral Agreement Bona Fide Dispute +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DIMENSION ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY LIMITED

Petitioner

LAW SIU LUN (羅少麟)

Debtor

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceedings / Bankruptcy Petition Hearing (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds to defeat the petition
  2. 2 Whether the alleged oral agreement (employment/sub-contract for HK$1,000,000) displaced the petitioning debt constituted by the loan
  3. 3 Whether misnomer in the statutory demand justified setting it aside

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: contemporaneous text messages and seven receipts from Funing supported the Petitioner’s loan claim; the Debtor's later unparticularised oral agreement allegation was inconsistent with documentary evidence (EM Form showing employment with Funing) and raised late without explanation; prior HCSD application was dismissed as out of time. Accordingly a usual bankruptcy order was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Usual bankruptcy order made against the Debtor in favour of the Petitioner with costs to the Petitioner

Orders

  • Bankruptcy order made against the Debtor
  • Costs awarded to the Petitioner