RE SIT WAI
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 1941
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 9 April 2026
- Posture
- Bankruptcy Proceedings / Bankruptcy Petition Hearing; Bankruptcy Order Made
- Case number
- HCB9798/2025
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 9 April 2026
- Posture
- Bankruptcy Proceedings / Bankruptcy Petition Hearing; Bankruptcy Order Made
- Case number
- HCB9798/2025
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Mainland judgment, being duly registered and the subject of an uncomplied statutory demand, established the petitioning debt; the debtor admitted indebtedness but failed to demonstrate ability to pay or provide a concrete, particularized proposal to discharge or secure the debt; accordingly the court was obliged to make the usual bankruptcy order.
Court disposition
Bankruptcy order made against the Debtor (Sit Wai)
Orders
- Usual bankruptcy order made against the Debtor
- The Petitioner’s costs in these proceedings to be paid out of the estate of the Debtor and to be taxed if not agreed
02
Material facts
Parties
YANG YANFANG
Petitioner Counsel: Mr Esmond WongSIT WAI
Debtor Counsel: Miss Cecilia ChangOfficial Receiver
Official Receiver Counsel: Mr Ronald ChanAmounts and remedies
- Petitioning Debt (registered Mainland Judgment): HKD 6,510,222.15
- Sum Recovered in Mainland Enforcement: RMB 1,814,637.53
- Equivalent Sum Recovered (hong Kong Dollars): HKD 1,924,550.13
- Estimated Total Sale Proceeds of Fanling Property: HKD 4,000,000
- Debtor's 50% Share of Estimated Sale Proceeds: HKD 2,000,000
- Net Outstanding After Recoveries and Property Share: HKD 2,585,672.02
03
Procedural history
Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Bankruptcy Petition Hearing; Bankruptcy Order Made
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the petitioning debt exists and is enforceable in Hong Kong by registration of a Mainland judgment
- 02
Whether the debtor has the ability to pay the petitioning debt or has provided a concrete proposal to secure or compound the debt
- 03
Whether a bankruptcy order should be made where a statutory demand is not complied with
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Petitioner relied on a Mainland judgment (27 February 2024) duly registered in Hong Kong (HCRE 63/2024), served a statutory demand which was not complied with, and although some sums were recovered in Mainland enforcement, a substantial balance remains unpaid; the Petitioner therefore sought a bankruptcy order and costs to be paid out of the estate.
- Respondent
- The Debtor tacitly accepted the indebtedness and asserted ability to pay, pointing to RMB1,814,637.53 recovered in Mainland enforcement (equivalent to HK$1,924,550.13) and an anticipated 50% share (HK$2,000,000) of sale proceeds from a Fanling property; the Debtor offered to settle by "reasonable instalments" but provided no period or financial particulars.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6)
A petitioner is entitled to a bankruptcy order where a statutory demand is served and not complied with and the petitioning debt remains due
- 02
Registration of foreign judgments (HCRE registration regime)
A foreign (Mainland) judgment, once duly registered in Hong Kong, gives rise to an enforceable judgment debt in Hong Kong
- 03
Court's supervisory discretion under the Bankruptcy Ordinance and established insolvency practice
A debtor opposing a bankruptcy petition must demonstrate an ability to pay or advance a concrete, particularized proposal to secure or compound the debt; vague, unspecified offers to pay by instalments are insufficient
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Mainland judgment, being duly registered and the subject of an uncomplied statutory demand, established the petitioning debt; the debtor admitted indebtedness but failed to demonstrate ability to pay or provide a concrete, particularized proposal to discharge or secure the debt; accordingly the court was obliged to make the usual bankruptcy order.
Obiter and limits
- The debtor's solicitor's offer to settle by "reasonable instalments" without time frame or financial particulars was rightly rejected as vague and unparticularized
- The petitioner's costs are to be paid out of the debtor's estate and taxed if not agreed
Court disposition
Bankruptcy order made against the Debtor (Sit Wai)
- Usual bankruptcy order made against the Debtor
- The Petitioner’s costs in these proceedings to be paid out of the estate of the Debtor and to be taxed if not agreed
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 9 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· 9 April 2026
HCB 9798/2025 [2026] HKCFI 1941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 9798 OF 2025 ______ RE: SIT WAI (薛維) The Debtor EX-PARTE: YANG YANFANG (杨艳芳) The Petitioner ______ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Alan Kwong in Open Court Date of Hearing: 30 March 2026 Date of Reasons for Judgment: 9 April 2026
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT By petition dated 22 December 2025, Ms Yang Yanfang (the “Petitioner”) seeks to bankrupt Mr Sit Wai (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 judgment of the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen dated 27 February 2024 in Guangdong Province Civil Appeal Case No (2023) Yue 03 Min Zhong 996 (the “Mainland Judgment”). The said Mainland Judgment has been duly registered in Hong Kong under HCRE 63/2024. The Debtor was ordered to pay an aggregate sum of HK$6,510,222.15 (together with interest) to the Petitioner. On 28 November 2025, the Petitioner, via her solicitors, personally served a statutory demand on the Debtor, demanding him to pay the indebtedness under the Mainland Judgment. Since the statutory demand had not been complied with, the Petitioner presented the petition herein on 22 December 2025. Ms Cecilia Chang (for the Debtor) fairly accepted that the Debtor is indebted to the Petitioner under the Mainland Judgment. This is consistent with the tacit admission in the Debtor’s notice of intention to oppose petition dated 23 March 2026. As stated in this document, the Debtor’s sole ground for opposing the petition is that he “is able to pay the petitioning debt”. At
the hearing, Ms Chang emphasized that:- The Petitioner had received a sum of RMB1,814,637.53 (which is equivalent to HK$1,924,550.13) via the enforcement proceedings in the Mainland. The Debtor has 50% interests in a property in Fanling. It is intended that this property be sold. The estimated sale proceeds arising from the intended sale are HK$4,000,000, and the Debtor’s 50% share would be HK$2,000,000. However, even if Ms Chang’s suggestion is to be fully accepted, the Debtor will still owe the Petitioner a net sum of HK$2,585,672.02, ie HK$6,510,222.15 (the petitioning debt) less HK$1,924,550.13 (the sum recovered under the enforcement proceedings in the Mainland) less HK$2,000,000 (the Debtor’s 50% share of the estimated sale proceeds of the property in Fanling). There is no evidence before the court showing that the Debtor has the financial means to pay the Petitioner a net sum in the region of about HK$2.5 million. Further, on the evidence before the court, the Debtor had not put forward a meaningful and concrete proposal to secure or compound for the indebtedness in question. In the letter dated 23 December 2025, the Debtor’s solicitors merely indicated that the Debtor was “prepared to settle [his] outstanding indebtedness by way of reasonable instalments”. There was no indication as to the period within which the entirety of the indebtedness is to be repaid. There was
also no information as to the financial means of the Debtor. Put simply, the Debtor’s proposal was vague and unparticularized. In my view, the Petitioner was entitled to reject the same and insist on seeking a bankruptcy order against the Debtor. In the premises, I make the usual bankruptcy order against the Debtor. 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 Esmond Wong (counsel for the Petitioner) and Ms Cecilia Chang for their assistance. (Alan Kwong) Deputy High Court Judge Mr Esmond Wong, instructed by M/s Ip, Kwan & Co., for the Petitioner Miss Cecilia Chang, instructed by M/s C. F. Lee & Co., for the Debtor 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.