31 Mar 2026
The company failed to discharge the burden of proof to justify an adjournment because it produced no credible, precise or contemporaneous evidence that the proposed investor funding would be provided or that such funding would enable payment of the petitioning debt; therefore the petitioner was entitled to a winding up order and the adjournment was refused.
5 Nov 2025
The Company failed to show a precise, credible timetable or realistic means by which the claimed restructuring recoveries (largely equity/trust interests with no realisation timeline) could be realised within a reasonable time and did not rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency arising from non‑compliance with the statutory demand; the statutory demand was not defective; therefore the creditor was entitled to a winding up order and the requested adjournment was refused.
24 Jul 2025
The Court held it has jurisdiction under Order 23 RHC to order security in arbitration-related proceedings under the Arbitration Ordinance; applying the statutory discretionary factors the Court found the Applicant was ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, produced no credible evidence of assets or means in Hong Kong, had obstructive conduct in the arbitration creating real risk of non-enforcement, and the setting aside challenge was not manifestly strong; accordingly security of HK$1.5 million was ordered and related procedural and costs directions made.
8 Apr 2025
On the evidence and contractual matrix (placing agreement, placing letter, customer agreement, register entries, supplemental deed poll and Ordinary Resolution) the Court concluded Yin is a registered bondholder and has locus to present the winding-up petition; the Company failed to show a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to Yin's and Wu's debts; Wu has locus by virtue of the Enforcement Order converting the arbitral award into a judgment debt; accordingly the Court acceded to the substitution applications and ordered the petition relisted before Master and costs against the Compan…
4 Mar 2025
The petition was dismissed for want of prosecution because the Petitioner repeatedly ignored court-imposed time limits and directions, failed to file required affirmations or skeleton argument, did not explain its inaction, and therefore the court properly exercised its discretion to dismiss and order costs against the Petitioner to the Official Receiver and the Company to be assessed as a gross sum.
27 Feb 2025
Service of the Notice to the address specified in the parties' agreements and by additional reasonable means constituted proper notice; the Defendant failed to notify any change of address as required and did not provide credible evidence of non-receipt, therefore the enforcement order should not be set aside and enforcement is appropriate under the Court's residual discretion.
19 Sept 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to adduce adequate evidence of a real risk of dissipation: the releases did not demonstrate assets being paid away to defeat enforcement, the banks were secured creditors, there was no evidence of other dissipation or inability to satisfy the award locally, and the Arbitral Tribunal had already rejected the false parent company allegation with cogent reasons and there was no material change of circumstances.
31 Jul 2024
Dominick 3rd did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall requirements and was not admissible; the Master properly exercised jurisdiction in directing pre-examination discovery and oral examination under O 48 r 1 given the Respondent's prior notice and choice not to file evidence; anticipated difficulties about beneficial ownership or confidentiality do not invalidate the Order and can be addressed at disclosure or by claim of privilege; appeal dismissed.
26 Jul 2024
The Court found on the evidence (the arbitration Award, Hong Kong enforcement orders, the instrument of transfer executed pursuant to an order and the Plaintiff's register entry) that the Plaintiff had established membership and majority shareholding; the Company’s produced register did not displace that evidence; it was impracticable to call a general meeting due to refusal to form a quorum; accordingly the Court exercised its discretion under s570 CO to order a general meeting with ancillary directions and refused the stay and further evidence applications as they were late, speculative and…
22 Jul 2024
Leave to appeal was required under section 6(5) of the Arbitration Ordinance and the exclusion in section 14(3)(ea)(viii) HCO applies; construing the statutory scheme purposively to avoid absurdity, the Court held the decision refusing leave falls within the restricted appeal regime and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of success, so leave was refused and related applications dismissed.