25 Aug 2025
The court exercised its discretion to adjourn the petition conditionally: if the Company pays HK$2,000,000 into court by 8 September 2025 the petition is adjourned to 22 September 2025 and the Company may apply for leave to file further evidence; failure to pay will result in the petition being re-listed and the Company wound up on 15 September 2025.
24 Jul 2025
The debtor failed to show a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds and did not comply with rule 68; having failed to set aside the statutory demand previously, he is barred by res judicata and the Turner principle from re‑litigating or raising new arguments at the petition stage, and no exceptional circumstances justified an adjournment; therefore a bankruptcy order was made.
24 May 2024
The Court set aside the judge’s order and exercised the discretion afresh: it held there was a tentative but sufficient prospect that the appeal and new evidence disclose a triable issue, and that the bankruptcy court may impose security as a condition of adjourning a petition; applying the exercise of discretion to the facts, the court ordered security equal to half the judgment sum (HK$12,900,000) to be paid into court or provided to the petitioners within eight weeks, with liberty to apply, and awarded mixed costs of the appeal (50% to the appellant).
29 Nov 2022
The court held that reasonable administration costs and disbursements incurred by the administrator are payable out of the estate and ordered accordingly subject to section 60; applications to authorise retention of solicitors and Beddoe relief in relation to the Intended Discovery and Joinder applications were premature while a related appeal remained outstanding and were adjourned sine die with liberty to restore; consequential costs orders were made directing payment out of the estate with taxation provisions.
14 Oct 2020
Because the petitions are founded on a subsisting judgment enforcing a foreign arbitral award, the judgment debt constitutes prima facie evidence of indebtedness; the respondents' appeals against decisions refusing to set aside statutory demands did not challenge the underlying judgment or award and did not demonstrate fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice or a reasonable prospect of success on newly raised grounds, so they failed to rebut the prima facie case and the court was entitled to make bankruptcy orders against each respondent.
14 Oct 2020
Because the petitions were founded on a subsisting judgment enforcing a Singapore arbitral award, that judgment provided prima facie evidence of indebtedness; the respondents' pending appeals did not impugn the underlying judgment or award and the asserted counterclaims/set-offs (implied term, unjust enrichment, constructive trust) were not previously pleaded, face Flywin/new point objections and lack reasonable prospects of success (including prior rejection in Singapore), the court refused to adjourn and made bankruptcy orders against both respondents.
29 Oct 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the repeated originating summonses and supporting affidavits lacked essential particulars and documentary evidence necessary to support a guardianship claim; absent those particulars there was no realistic prospect of success under Cap.336 s63A and no public interest or justice-based reason to grant leave.
26 Feb 2014
The court held that bankruptcy jurisdiction existed because the debtor maintained a place of residence in Hong Kong (24D and other addresses supported by company records and use of SHK address); the creditor had taken all reasonable steps to bring the statutory demand to the debtor's attention (personal attempts, letters to solicitors, investigators and newspaper advertisement) and substituted service was justified because the debtor evaded service; allegations of material non‑disclosure failed; and adjournment pending appeal was refused because no stay of execution was sought.
2 Apr 2013
No exceptional circumstances existed to justify determining the leave application or adjourning the trial; the hearing of the leave application was adjourned sine die with liberty to restore because the expert evidence was not shown to be decisive of the trial and any error in admitting it could be remedied post-trial, including by limited retrial ordered under Order 59.
14 Mar 2013
The court dismissed the application to set aside the statutory demand and made the bankruptcy petition absolute because (1) service was properly effected and acknowledged; (2) a pending appeal did not justify setting aside or adjourning the demand where no stay existed and accepted practice precludes going behind the judgment; (3) the debtor failed to establish a genuine and serious counterclaim under r48(5) as the claim had been twice rejected; and (4) the debtor had not prosecuted his appeals with due diligence, so the petition should not be adjourned.