RE LEE HON PONG
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 1940
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 8 April 2026
- Posture
- Bankruptcy Proceedings (petition on Judgment Debt) / Hearing and Judgment — Usual Bankruptcy Order Granted
- Case number
- HCB8468/2025
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 8 April 2026
- Posture
- Bankruptcy Proceedings (petition on Judgment Debt) / Hearing and Judgment — Usual Bankruptcy Order Granted
- Case number
- HCB8468/2025
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court granted the bankruptcy order because the petition was founded on an existing unchallenged summary judgment treated as prima facie evidence of indebtedness, the statutory demand was not complied with, there was no appeal or evidence of fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice impugning the judgment, and the debtor offered no concrete proposal to address the debt.
Court disposition
Usual bankruptcy order granted against the Debtor.
Orders
- Usual bankruptcy order granted against Lee Hon Pong (the Debtor).
- Petitioner’s costs of these proceedings to be paid out of the estate of the Debtor, to be taxed if not agreed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Dah Sing Bank, Limited
Petitioner Counsel: Mr Wilson Yuen (P.C. Woo & Co.)Lee Hon Pong
Debtor Counsel: Self-represented (in person)Official Receiver
Official Receiver Counsel: Mr Ronald Chan (Official Receiver's Office)Amounts and remedies
- Judgment Sum: HKD 1,173,288.58
- Interest: HKD 33,198.32
- Assessed Costs: HKD 20,000
- Aggregate Sum Demanded by Statutory Demand: HKD 1,226,486.9
03
Procedural history
Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings (petition on Judgment Debt) / Hearing and Judgment — Usual Bankruptcy Order Granted
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the summary judgment underpinning the petition can be impeached
- 02
Whether the statutory demand was complied with
- 03
Whether a bankruptcy order should be made
- 04
Whether costs should be paid out of the debtor's estate
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Petitioner relied on a summary judgment (DCCJ 6680/2024) and a statutory demand served by advertisement demanding HK$1,226,486.90 (judgment sum HK$1,173,288.58, interest HK$33,198.32, assessed costs HK$20,000) which was not complied with and therefore sought a bankruptcy order.
- Respondent
- Debtor sought more time to 'sort out' the indebtedness but presented no concrete proposal to secure or compound the debt and did not challenge the summary judgment by appeal or evidence of fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Re Sin Kwok Lam [2025] HKCFI 3242 para 15
A judgment is prima facie evidence that a debtor is indebted to the creditor and, where the petitioning debt is based on a judgment, the bankruptcy court will not re-examine the judgment absent evidence of fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice.
- 02
Bankruptcy practice and statutory framework (Bankruptcy Ordinance, Cap. 6)
Where a statutory demand is served and not complied with, the creditor may present a bankruptcy petition on the judgment debt.
- 03
This judgment (reasons for order)
Costs of petitioning creditor in bankruptcy proceedings may be ordered to be paid out of the debtor's estate and taxed if not agreed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court granted the bankruptcy order because the petition was founded on an existing unchallenged summary judgment treated as prima facie evidence of indebtedness, the statutory demand was not complied with, there was no appeal or evidence of fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice impugning the judgment, and the debtor offered no concrete proposal to address the debt.
Obiter and limits
- A mere request for more time without a concrete proposal is insufficient to resist a bankruptcy petition.
- Costs to be taxed if not agreed and paid out of the debtor's estate.
Court disposition
Usual bankruptcy order granted against the Debtor.
- Usual bankruptcy order granted against Lee Hon Pong (the Debtor).
- Petitioner’s costs of these proceedings to be paid out of the estate of the Debtor, to be taxed if not agreed.
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 8 April 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 8 April 2026
HCB 8468/2025 [2026] HKCFI 1940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 8468 OF 2025 ______ RE: LEE HON PONG (李漢邦) The Debtor EX-PARTE: DAH SING BANK, LIMITED The Petitioner ______ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Alan Kwong in Open Court Date of Hearing: 30 March 2026 Date of Reasons for Judgment: 8 April 2026
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT By petition dated 5 November 2025, Dah Sing Bank Ltd (the “Petitioner”) seeks to bankrupt Mr Lee Hon Pong (the “Debtor”). Having considered the parties’ evidence and submissions, at the hearing on 30 March 2026, I granted the usual bankruptcy order against the Debtor. These are the reasons for my judgment. The petition is premised on a summary judgment that Registrar Soong entered against, inter alia, the Debtor on 16 May 2025 in DCCJ 6680/2024. On 22 August 2025, the Petitioner served a statutory demand dated 9 July 2025 by advertisement, demanding the Debtor to pay an aggregate sum of HK$1,226,486.90, which comprises of (i) the judgment sum of HK$1,173,288.58; (ii) interest of HK$33,198.32; and (iii) assessed costs of HK$20,000. The said statutory demand had not been complied with. Hence, the Petitioner presented the petition herein on 5 November 2025. Where the petitioning debt is based on a judgment, the court would treat the judgment as prima facie evidence that the debtor is indebted to the creditor, and the bankruptcy court would not inquire into the judgment, unless there is some evidence showing that the judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion or that there was a miscarriage of justice which impinges on the validity of the judgment: see Re Sin Kwok Lam [2025] HKCFI 3242 at para 15 (per Linda Chan J). The Debtor is not in a position to impeach
the summary judgment in DCCJ 6680/2024. There has been no appeal against the said summary judgment. There is also no suggestion, let alone evidence, showing that the said summary judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion or that there was a miscarriage of justice. At the hearing, the Debtor merely asked for more time to “sort out” the indebtedness. However, he was unable to put forward a concrete proposal to secure or compound for the indebtedness owed to the Petitioner. In the premises, I have no alternative but to grant the usual bankruptcy order. I also order that the Petitioner’s costs in these proceedings (which are to be taxed if not agreed) be paid out of the estate of the Debtor. I thank Mr Wilson Yuen (counsel for the Petitioner) for his assistance. (Alan Kwong) Deputy High Court Judge Mr Wilson Yuen, instructed by M/s. P.C. Woo & Co., for the Petitioner Lee Hon Pong (李漢邦), Debtor, in person, Present Mr Ronald Chan, of Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.