Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Debt enforcement

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2026

RE VAST LUCK COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW587/2025

Refusal of further adjournment and making of a usual winding up order because the Company admitted the undisputed debt, repeatedly failed to make promised payments or deliver a bank draft, produced unreliable and contradictory evidence of prospective funding with no documentary proof, and therefore could not demonstrate a reasonable prospect that funds would be injected to avoid winding up.
11 Dec 2024

GREAT PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. 张华荣

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1147
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV206/2023

The estoppel defence was unarguable because the alleged representations were not clear and unequivocal, Yang disclaimed authority so no binding representation by the plaintiff was shown, the defendant failed to prove detrimental reliance causally linked to the representations, the Main Agreement required written variations, and any suspensory estoppel would have ended on reasonable notice; accordingly summary judgment and the entry of final judgment were properly granted and affirmed.
20 May 2021

BANK OF TAIWAN, HONG KONG BRANCH v. ZHAOHENG HYDROPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1434
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW37/2021

The Court granted the winding up order because the debt claimed was due and undisputed, the statutory demand was valid and unmet, the Company was unable to pay its debts under s177/178 CWUO, and the Company failed to produce any concrete, supported restructuring proposal or binding arrangements that would justify adjourning the petition.
12 Apr 2021

RE LUNG KAM CHIU

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1007
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4202/2020

Debt was admitted; the debtor's asserted sole defence (realisation of an interest in company property) was undermined by an apparent Instrument of Transfer and by the speculative nature and delay of litigation to resolve that claim, leaving no reasonable basis to resist making the bankruptcy order.
4 Jun 2018

RE HONG KONG SPORTS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as “LeTV Sports Culture Develop (Hong Kong) Co Ltd”)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW66/2018

The court found no evidence of a bona fide defence on substantial grounds to the claim for at least US$12,905,000 and that the arbitration did not put that part of the debt in dispute; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to make the winding-up order and ordered costs of the supporting contributory to be paid out of the company's assets.
18 Apr 2005

RE THL (HOLDINGS) CO LTD

Citation

RE THL (HOLDINGS) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1308/2003

Because the companies withdrew their opposition and the petitioning debts established by prior judgments and demand were not contested, the court was entitled to make winding-up orders against each company and to direct that the petitioner's costs be paid out of the companies' assets.
21 Feb 2005

WELD-TECH ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES CO LTD

Citation

WELD-TECH ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1061/2004

Because the debt of HK$435,641.64 was established and the Company could only offer instalments which the petitioner rejected and could not improve its offer, the court exercised its discretion to make a winding-up order and directed that the petitioner's costs be paid out of the Company's assets.
22 Mar 2004

RE CENTURY GROUP LTD

Citation

RE CENTURY GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW59/2004

Because the petitioning debt of HK$738,380.44 was established by an earlier interim payment order, remained undisputed and the company did not oppose the petition, the court was entitled to make a winding-up order and to direct that the petitioner's costs be paid out of the company's assets.
25 Aug 2003

RE HONG FENG ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

RE HONG FENG ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW742/2003

The court made a winding-up order because the petition was founded on an undisputed Labour Tribunal consent award debt, a statutory demand was served, the Company failed to appear or file opposing evidence after its solicitors withdrew, and there was no apparent basis to challenge the judgment debt, demonstrating inability to pay.
29 Jul 2003

LEE SOW KENG JANET v. KELLY MCKENZIE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE SOW KENG JANET v. KELLY MCKENZIE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2303/2002

The 1st Defendant was incorporated and controlled by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants contemporaneously with diversion of Linkwaters' business and assets, rendering Linkwaters unable to satisfy the plaintiff's judgment; the 1st Defendant was a vehicle used to evade liability and the corporate veil is therefore lifted so that Kelly McKenzie Limited and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the judgment debt; the 4th Defendant was not involved in the diversion and is not liable.