Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal guarantee

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

GUANGHUA SS HOLDINGS LTD v. CHEN JIANAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA184/2024

Plaintiff proved a prima facie enforceable claim under the executed Personal Guarantees and contemporaneous documents; defendant failed to particularise or adduce contemporaneous evidence to show a real, bona fide defence of misrepresentation or economic duress, the alleged threats were lawful commercial pressure or unsupported, warning notices and independent legal advice undermine duress, and the counterclaim discloses no reasonable cause of action — therefore no triable issues exist and summary judgment is warranted and counterclaim is struck out.
27 Jan 2026

RE LIU FU ON

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 619
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB5057/2025

There was no bona fide dispute over the sums claimed; the Debtor failed to produce credible evidence that payment of at least the admitted debt would be forthcoming within a reasonable time (the desktop valuation and assertions were insufficient and, even optimistically, any surplus from sale of the mortgaged property would not cover the unpaid sum); accordingly the Debtor was unable to pay his debts and a bankruptcy order was warranted.
26 Jan 2026

RE TSOI MAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 586
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB5570/2025

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements (no proper verifying affidavit as required by rule 56/Form 11), the statutory demand and petition contained material inconsistencies (notably as to the date of the Guarantee and the agreement relied upon), and there exists an arguable bona fide dispute on substantial grounds whether the Guarantee as drafted covers liabilities under the 2025 Agreement, such that it was inappropriate to make a bankruptcy order.
10 Dec 2025

RE LUI CHUN KIT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB5816/2024

The petition was dismissed because there exists a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to whether the loan was repaid; triable issues raised in HCMP 771/2023 as to repayment, the purpose of disputed payments and credibility of witnesses mean the summary bankruptcy procedure is unsuitable; the Personal Guarantee challenge was an abused/late argument and not determinative; accordingly the creditor's petition cannot succeed and costs are awarded to the debtor.
2 Sept 2025

DYNAMIC GAIN OPPORTUNITY LTD v. GE YIYANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA653/2024

The appeals are dismissed because the defendants failed to establish an arguable defence: the new evidence was inadmissible under Ladd v Marshall (no satisfactory explanation for lateness and not likely to affect outcome), there was no evidence of breach of any legal duty or of bad faith/deliberate injurious conduct by the plaintiffs, and economic duress/unconscionability were not made out; indemnity costs under the guarantee were awarded and summarily assessed.
2 Sept 2025

GLOBAL SPARKLE HOLDINGS IV LTD v. GE YIYANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA651/2024

The appeals were dismissed and the summons to admit new evidence was refused because the defendants failed to raise any arguable defence or triable issue: the new evidence did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria and showed no legal duty breached or evidence of bad faith or deliberate injurious conduct by the plaintiffs; likewise the facts did not establish economic duress or illegitimate pressure in the commercial negotiations. Costs were awarded on an indemnity basis pursuant to the contractual indemnity clause, summarily assessed at HK$220,000 per appeal (HK$660,000 total) with certifi…
7 Feb 2025

MEE TICK HANGERS INTERNATIONAL LTD v. PETER GREENING (ALSO KNOWN AS PETER CAVE GREENING)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 549
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1787/2023

The defendant's sole remaining defence (the alleged profit offset arrangement) was inherently implausible and contradicted contemporaneous documents (notably emails of March 2018 and subsequent correspondence), the defendant offered no credible contemporaneous evidence of the agreement, and the defendant admitted the underlying debt amount; therefore there was no triable issue of liability and summary judgment was properly entered for the guaranteed sum with interest.
19 Dec 2024

LIU GUIQIAO v. MAK LOK MAN (also known as MAK LOK MAN MANDY) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1489/2019

The loan was advanced and, upon the borrower's bankruptcy, became immediately due under the Loan Agreement; the Personal Guarantee made the guarantor liable to pay when the debt fell due; the defendants did not attend trial to substantiate defences; therefore judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the loan plus interest and costs.
26 Aug 2024

KONG KIM POR PAUL v. LAI KIN TO JOSEPH

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1421
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3909/2020

Judge accepted plaintiff’s credible evidence, rejected defendant’s testimony as fabricated, found the defendant personally made and breached the 1st Personal Guarantee and alternatively that there was a total failure of basis (unjust enrichment) because the RMB500,000 was not deposited into the company as authorized; accordingly defendant must repay RMB500,000 plus interest. The 2nd Personal Guarantee was found to be by the company, not the defendant personally, and that claim was dismissed.
19 Feb 2024

RE CHENG KWUN SHING EDWARD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 524
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2472/2023

The debtor failed to raise a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds regarding liability under the personal guarantee; contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence (email, WhatsApp, affidavits) rebutted allegations of forgery and made the debtor's explanations inherently unbelievable; debtor was deemed insolvent for non‑compliance with the statutory demand and the court therefore made a bankruptcy order.