Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Overstatement of debt

  • 9 Dec 2025

    CHOI KING HUNG v. FUNG SHING CHUNG

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 5938
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD41/2025

    Applicant failed to establish any ground under BR r 48(5): jointly owned properties realistically assignable nil value for Applicant's debt; unsold shares value insufficient; amended SD correctly credited realized proceeds so not overstated; appeal lacked merit to constitute a substantial dispute; mediation is not a basis to set aside. Accordingly the amended statutory demand stands and the application is dismissed with authorization to present a bankruptcy petition after 23 December 2025.

  • 5 Nov 2025

    YEUNG SO LAI v. ART EXCEL LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 957
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV413/2024

    The exemption in Part 2 Schedule 1 para 2(a) of the Money Lenders Ordinance applies to a loan made to a company that is secured by a mortgage registered or to be registered under the Companies Ordinance irrespective of whether the registered security is provided by the borrower or a third party; accordingly the loan was an exempted loan, the respondent was not a 'money lender' in respect of that loan under the MLO, and the statutory demand was valid — the Judge's setting aside on the unlicensed money‑lender ground was wrong and is set aside, allowing the appeal.

  • 14 Jul 2022

    CHAN WS AND ANOTHER v. CC Bank

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1037
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV59/2021

    The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal, holding the judge below misdirected herself by failing to consider whether the over‑statement caused substantial injustice; the creditor had clarified the correct amount and there was no evidence the debtors could or would have paid the correct amount, so no injustice would follow if the demands stood; the SDs should not have been set aside and the application is dismissed; respondent authorised to present bankruptcy petitions; costs orders adjusted accordingly.

  • 18 Jan 2021

    CHAN WS AND ANOTHER v. CC BANK

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 143
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD22/2018

    The statutory demands were set aside because the debt as stated in the demands was significantly overstated and the creditor failed to correct the mistake, producing a substantial and bona fide dispute about the amount; alleged oral promise did not establish waiver or estoppel (contradicted by written terms requiring waiver in writing and by contemporaneous documents) and the mortgage was not security for the applicants for rule 48(5)(c) purposes (third‑party mortgagor and no surplus after prior sale). The interlocutory summons to strike out was dismissed as misconceived and unnecessary.

  • 17 Jul 2007

    RE VINCENT KAY LO IP

    Citation
    RE VINCENT KAY LO IP
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB1209/2000

    Application dismissed because the reduced judgment debt remained outstanding as evidenced by an affirmation, the debtor was represented and did not oppose the petition, no injustice would be caused by the overstatement, and the application was an abuse of process after multiple failed attempts; discretion therefore exercised against annulment and a hearing directed on a potential restricted application order.