Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intent to defraud creditors

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2026

CHEN YUNG NGAI KENNETH, one of the joint and several trustees of the property of the Bankrupt, LI SHU CHUNG v. KAREN JANE LI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1130
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA415/2021

The court found, on uncontradicted evidence including the Bankrupt's own prior sworn admissions and trustee confirmations, that the Bankrupt was the beneficial owner of the Roteland shares and of Joesh prior to the 2016 disposition; the 2016 transfers were transactions at undervalue to associates within five years of the petition, triggering the presumption of insolvency and supporting a finding of intent to defraud creditors; accordingly the disposition was set aside and the shares vested in the trustee under BO ss.49,51A and CPO s.60, with consequential transfer and vesting orders and costs…
9 Oct 2020

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. NG SHUI CHING, IRENE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 818
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/2018

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that genuine loans existed and that the Declaration of Trust executed on 1 November 2009 transferred the beneficial ownership of the shares to the 1st Defendant; therefore the subsequent formal transfer and the transfer of the vehicle were not at an undervalue, did not constitute unfair preference and were not made with intent to defraud creditors; the appeal was dismissed.
28 Dec 2017

ERWIANA SULISTYANINGSIH v. TSUI YUN BUN BARRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

ERWIANA SULISTYANINGSIH v. TSUI YUN BUN BARRY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2256/2015

The 2nd defendant was a joint beneficial owner and, being insolvent, made an unconditional nil‑consideration transfer which subjected creditors (including the plaintiff) to a significant risk of non‑recovery; accordingly an intent to defraud creditors was properly inferred under s.60 C&PO and the transfer is voidable and must be set aside; the 1st defendant shared the intention as a willing co‑operator.
5 Dec 2017

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. NG SHUI CHING, IRENE AND ANOTHER

Citation

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. NG SHUI CHING, IRENE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA311/2014

On the balance of probabilities the court found the loans from Mrs Ng were genuine advances, the Declaration of Trust of 1 November 2009 conveyed beneficial interest in the 55% shares to Mrs Ng and the later transfer documents simply formalised that position; Mr Ng was solvent when the trust was created and the transfer was supported by consideration so there was no transaction at undervalue, no unfair preference and no intent to defraud creditors; the Vehicle was purchased with Mrs Ng's funds and held on trust for her; the Trustees' application to set aside the transfers was dismissed.
16 Sept 2015

NG TAK KAU v. CHEUNG MAN KWAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG TAK KAU v. CHEUNG MAN KWAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1867/2012

Court found on evidence that the Father alone funded acquisition and payments, the Debtor made no contribution and held his registered share on trust for the Father (express/resulting trust); presumption of advancement was rebutted; consequently plaintiff's claim based on beneficial ownership and fraudulent disposition failed and action was dismissed.
25 Feb 2013

黄旭輝 v. CHAN KIM WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

黄旭輝 v. CHAN KIM WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2277/2012

The Assignment was a gratuitous disposition unsupported by consideration, made at a time when Chan was insolvent or such disposition rendered him insolvent, the Property being his sole asset and Chan owing the plaintiff HK$500,000; in the absence of any explanation the irresistible inference of intent to defraud creditors arises under the rule in Freeman v Pope and section 60 is engaged, rendering the Assignment voidable and to be set aside.
6 Mar 2009

TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to prove, with credible admissible evidence, that the shares in Tradepower HK were worth in excess of HK$1,000,000 and the legal issues advanced did not raise questions of great general or public importance where the governing test (Freeman v Pope) was not in dispute.
12 Mar 2008

TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1796/2005

The court was not satisfied that the directors effected the Scheme with a dishonest intention to defraud creditors; objective evidence established a legitimate commercial purpose (to regularise beneficial ownership given Girvan's financing), the directors believed the Elimor liability had not crystallised and Holdings had or expected sufficient assets to meet the claim; accordingly an essential element of a s60 claim (intent to defraud) was not proven and the action was dismissed.
21 Oct 1994

SKINK LTD AND ANOTHER v. COMTOWELL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SKINK LTD AND ANOTHER v. COMTOWELL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV74/1994

The court held that on the affidavit evidence the defendants had offered a credible innocent explanation for the undervalue transfers such that it was not overwhelmingly clear they acted with intent to defraud creditors; therefore O.14 summary judgment was inappropriate and the appeal was dismissed, leaving the factual disputes for trial.
10 Jan 1990

HONOUR FINANCE CO LTD v. POON TING CHAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONOUR FINANCE CO LTD v. POON TING CHAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2038/1988

Court found the husband had the requisite intent to defraud creditors but the plaintiff failed to prove that the wife had notice of that intent or was wilfully blind; therefore the claim under s.60 against the wife fails and must be dismissed.