Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of petition

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2025

RE YUEN YIU FAI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 273
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV227/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the judge did not err in principle in exercising her discretion: the amendment was a clerical correction, the debtor failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds with supporting documents, the debtor breached his undertaking to pay and the affidavit filed without leave did not alter the assessment of the evidence; accordingly the bankruptcy order was properly made.
29 Nov 2024

RE MA TING HOI ALBERT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3460
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1146/2024

The court held that a difference between the amount in the statutory demand and the amended petition did not strip the court of jurisdiction; the SD could be relied upon to establish apparent inability to pay and the court would exercise its discretion to waive the introductory defect because no prejudice to the debtor was shown. The petitioner’s valuations at demand and petition dates were genuine; the debtor failed to adduce admissible, reliable evidence proving on the balance of probabilities that the security equalled or exceeded the petition debt. The court excluded the late RKF expert r…
10 Dec 2021

LAU CHO KWAN, LEO AND ANOTHER v. LAU SIU FAN, ELAINE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3718
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW262/2020

The court dismissed the Set Aside Summons and the Strike Out Summons and allowed the Amendment Summons; the judge found the costs claimed were massively inflated and disproportionate to the legal issues and the work reasonably required and therefore summarily assessed substantially reduced party‑and‑party costs payable by the Company: HK$128,000 for the Set Aside Summons (80% of assessed HK$160,000), HK$380,000 for the Strike Out Summons, and HK$80,000 for the Amendment Summons (80% of assessed HK$100,000); costs orders were granted with certificate for two counsel, summarily assessed and pay…
8 Nov 2021

LAU CHO KWAN, LEO AND ANOTHER v. LAU SIU FAN, ELAINE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3352
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW262/2020

The Court refused the extension of time because the Company failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success and therefore provided no justification to grant additional time or to validate expenditure for counsel to explore unspecified grounds of appeal, especially where the Company was represented by counsel at the hearing and the principles applied were discretionary and well settled.
1 Mar 2021

RE POINTER & DENT CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 573
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW142/2020

The petition was properly amended to plead a restitutionary claim for subscription monies; the company failed to appear or demonstrate any defence to the amended claim; accordingly the court will pronounce the normal winding-up order, order the costs to be costs in the petition and require formal verification of the amended petition by a specified date.
13 Jan 2021

LEUNG SO HUNG SIEM v. WEN KAR SUEN CARSON

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 55
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1806/2020

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the Notice of Appeal was served out of time and, critically, the underlying application for leave to apply for judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success since judicial review does not lie against a judicable; accordingly there was no useful purpose in extending time or admitting new evidence.
18 Sept 2020

LEUNG SO HUNG SIEM v. WEN KAR SUEN CARSON

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2399
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1806/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because judicial review does not lie against an order or judgment of the Court of First Instance and the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.
11 Jun 2020

LEUNG SO HUNG SIEM v. CARSON WEN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1079
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4036/2018

The petition succeeds because the three costs orders underpinning the First Statutory Demand are validly enforceable judgments and the debtor failed to demonstrate any fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice or to substantiate a genuine, substantial crossclaim; late and irrelevant evidence filed after the hearing was excluded as abuse; amendment of the petition was permitted only to delete the incorrect phrase about the Second Statutory Demand, and the Second Statutory Demand could not be relied upon as it was outstanding when the petition was presented.
2 Apr 2019

CHEONG KA HEI v. CHAN MARIA OLIMPIA OI LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW38/2018

Kada must be joined as the 3rd respondent because it holds 50.01% of the company's issued share capital and its shares are the subject matter of the petition's relief; the addition does not undermine the 1st respondent's status given her central conduct of the company's affairs; the specific amendments to prayers to refer to the 3rd respondent are appropriate and necessary; the court may dispense with re‑advertisement and a further verifying affidavit for a relatively minor amendment; costs of the application after 23 May 2018 to be paid by the 1st respondent.
24 Dec 2018

LI FU HUA (also known as DENISE LI) v. CHEN CHING CHIH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2786
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1374/2018

The petition was withdrawn by consent and struck out/dismissed as having no utility after the company's winding up; liquidators, not petitioners, must pursue company claims post-winding up; there was no sufficient change of circumstances or improper conduct by the 1st Respondent to displace the usual presumption that the discontinuing party pays costs; the 2nd amendment breached a court order, justifying indemnity costs.