Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidated debt

Legal area

Court

3 Jan 2025

RE WONG SAI CHUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 155
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4039/2023

The 1st Undertaking in the prior judgment did not operate as a condition precedent to the debtor's obligation to pay; the judgment required payment forthwith and any breach of the undertaking would at best give rise to a cross-claim rather than suspend enforcement; there was no bona fide dispute on the petitioning debt and the petitioning debt was a liquidated sum, so a bankruptcy order was warranted.
5 Mar 2020

RE LEE MING CHEUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 297
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB607/2019

The summons to stay the bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the appeal was arguable: contemporaneous evidence of telephone calls, appointment attempts, advertisement and posting established reasonable steps and notice of the statutory demand so the service ground was not arguable; and the petitioning debt was admitted by the applicant and was a sum ascertainable by reference to market data, therefore a liquidated claim capable of founding a statutory demand, so the liquidated-sum ground was not arguable. Absent an arguable appeal there was no basis to exerci…
22 Jan 2020

RE FOO WAI LOK

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 258
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6077/2018

Clause 5.03 of the tenancy agreement mandatorily reduced the defined Deposit by the amount of rent arrears and loss or damage upon those sums falling into arrear, effecting automatic set-off such that no debt remained owing by the debtor as at the date of the statutory demand or the petition; accordingly the bankruptcy petition was dismissed.
9 Aug 2019

EASY MOUNT GROUP LTD v. LAM KA YUK, JAMES

Citation

[2019] HKCA 890
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV267/2018

The petition was dismissed because the asserted Sum did not constitute a 'debt' under the Bankruptcy Ordinance as it was not a liquidated sum: there was no consensus on the quantum of the Consideration required under the Memo, the Demand Letters were manifestly incorrect and open to challenge, and the Guarantee did not convert the disputed contingent payment obligation into a presently payable liquidated debt.
29 May 2018

RE LAM KA YUK, JAMES

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1182
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB5246/2016

The court held the Sum was not a liquidated sum under s6(2)(b) because RMB60,000,000 was only the minimum possible consideration and the parties had not agreed the exact quantum; therefore no definite indebtedness existed and the creditor's certificates were manifestly incorrect and not conclusive; accordingly the petition was dismissed.
9 Apr 2018

RE YIP CHI HIM, ROGER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 872
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7535/2017

The court held the debtor's characterization of the judgment as a simultaneous two-way exchange was incorrect; the prior judgment awarded a liquidated sum payable and the creditor's undertaking to revert shares upon receipt does not negate the debt or prevent one-way enforcement; the statutory demand was not set aside or complied with and the petition must be allowed.
11 Dec 2003

CHEUNG MAN KOK v. FENN KAR BAK LILY

Citation

CHEUNG MAN KOK v. FENN KAR BAK LILY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD25/2003

The statutory demand was set aside because the alleged sum was not a genuinely liquidated debt: the claimant's entitlement depended on completion of partnership accounts and there was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. Therefore the debt could not sustain a statutory demand; further, issuing the demand in those circumstances was an abuse of process warranting indemnity costs against the respondent.
25 Oct 2000

RE MILAN ORNAMENT MANUFACTORY LTD.

Citation

RE MILAN ORNAMENT MANUFACTORY LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW970/1999

The company failed to prove the alleged oral agreement; even if it existed it lacked consideration under Foakes v Beer and the company did not perform it in any event; therefore the judgment debt of $65,407.99 remained due and the company was unable to pay its debts, entitling the court to make a winding-up order.