Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Locus standi of creditor

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2018

RE GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL KINDERGARTEN AND NURSERY LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 641
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW210/2017

Because the petitioner's claimed debt is contingent on the company becoming profitable, a contingency that cannot occur once the company is insolvent and subject to winding up, the debt is not admissible to proof and the petitioner is not a creditor for the purposes of s179; therefore the petitioner lacked locus to present the petition and the petition must be dismissed.
10 May 2005

RE SURPLUS TRADER LTD

Citation

RE SURPLUS TRADER LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW826/2004

The court held that the petitioner has locus standi because there is no bona fide dispute of the petitioning debt on substantial grounds; the written facility documents were validly executed and entitled the petitioner to demand repayment, the alleged no-recourse oral representation is inconsistent with the agreements and was raised late and contrary to admissions, and the companies are unable to pay their debts; accordingly winding-up orders were made and costs ordered to be paid out of each company's assets.
21 Feb 2002

Re Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.

Citation

Re Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1299/2001

The petition was struck out because the petitioner did not demonstrate an undisputed entitlement to the claimed debt; the court found there was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds (including triable issues as to NLD's indebtedness, validity and effect of the assignment and the existence and terms of any compromise/variation), and therefore FWT lacked locus standi to present the winding‑up petition until it established the debt in ordinary proceedings.
2 Jun 2000

RE: LI TAT KONG and EX PARTE: OFFICIAL RECEIVER

Citation

RE: LI TAT KONG and EX PARTE: OFFICIAL RECEIVER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB741/1995

The court held that the four‑year relevant period commenced on the adjudication date (22 November 1995) and, because 21 November 1999 fell on a Sunday, the period did not expire until 22 November 1999; the omission on 22 November 1999 of any interim order suspending discharge was an accidental slip correctable under Order 20 r.11; the creditor was entitled to be heard despite not issuing its own summons because no substantial prejudice to the bankrupt resulted and the trustee had properly applied; on the merits the bankrupt had failed to co‑operate, concealed accounts and assets and discharge…
18 Jul 1984

PERAK PIONEER LTD v. CARRIAN HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

PERAK PIONEER LTD v. CARRIAN HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/1984

The appeal was allowed because the learned judge breached natural justice by not permitting Perak to argue the central contention that the alleged debt was bona fide and substantially disputed, and because a winding-up order cannot properly be made without first ensuring the petitioner is a creditor within the statutory meaning; consequently the orders of 10 July were quashed and the Motion and Petition were reinstated for rehearing before another judge.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL KINDERGARTEN AND NURSERY LTD

RE SURPLUS TRADER LTD

Re Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.

RE: LI TAT KONG and EX PARTE: OFFICIAL RECEIVER

PERAK PIONEER LTD v. CARRIAN HOLDINGS LTD