Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
A bankruptcy order was appropriate because the debt was valid and due, the statutory demand remained unpaid, the debtor offered an implausible repayment plan that would take decades, and the alleged asset that could enable repayment was already repossessed, leaving no realistic means to satisfy the debt.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance pronounced a usual bankruptcy order after an unpaid HK$19,475 judgment debt, a served statutory demand, and no admissible proof of payment ability.
The Court of First Instance made a bankruptcy order against Lee Nim Wai, refused leave to oppose out of time, and rejected an adjournment based on alleged future payment.
The application for leave to bring judicial review was refused because the applicant sought to challenge a final judicial decision — namely the High Court judge's refusal of permission to appeal under s.28(3) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance — which is not susceptible to judicial review; permitting the JR would amount to a prohibited quasi‑appeal and an abuse of process, and the proposed grounds lacked arguable legal basis.
Source excerpt
The debtor failed to pay the statutory demand within 21 days and is therefore deemed unable to pay under s6A(1)(a); the matters were already litigated and dismissed in the debtor's application to set aside the demand so res judicata/issue estoppel apply; the debtor did not provide the required substantial, precise and credible evidence or a genuine set-off or offer to pay; accordingly the court was satisfied to make a bankruptcy order against the debtor.
Source excerpt
The District Court granted a mortgagee’s application for sale of a co-owned flat after the defendant defaulted and did not appear. Costs were assessed at HK$98,650.
The District Court rejected Lau Tin Shek’s claims to a flat by trust, estoppel and adverse possession, and enforced South-China’s legal charge.
The Court of First Instance varied a Mareva injunction, holding that the defendants’ unencumbered assets exceeded the ceiling and could be used to meet specified debts.
The Court of First Instance adjusted retention sums from vessel sale proceeds, confirmed indemnity costs subject to taxation if not agreed, and allowed retention for related mortgage-enforcement legal costs.
The court concluded the statutory demand and petition were properly served, the debt exceeded the statutory minimum, and the debtor failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or credible evidence of imminent repayment; accordingly a bankruptcy order was made.
Source excerpt
Explore more
