Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presentation of petition

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2022

RE YIP KIM PO

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1912
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4531/2021

Debtor was precluded by the prior determination on the application to set aside the statutory demand (issue estoppel/res judicata and Turner public policy) from raising the limitation defence at the petition hearing; accordingly the debtor's stay summons was dismissed and the petition proceeded, and the court held that in the bankruptcy context the term "action" under s.4(1)(a) of the Limitation Ordinance is sufficiently broad to encompass the two‑stage statutory demand/petition process.
29 Nov 2011

RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS HK LTD

Citation

RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS HK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW357/2011

Where it is reasonably possible to file a winding‑up petition at the Registry before applying for provisional liquidators rule 23 should be complied with; but if filing before the application is not possible and the case is sufficiently urgent the court may treat presentation of the petition to the judge hearing the application, together with an undertaking to file it at the Registry as soon as practicable, as satisfying s.193(1) of the Companies Ordinance.
29 Nov 2011

RE MF GLOBAL HONG KONG LTD

Citation

RE MF GLOBAL HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW356/2011

Where a petition cannot reasonably be filed at the Registry before an application for provisional liquidators due to urgency, the court may treat presentation of the petition to the judge hearing the application, coupled with an undertaking to file at the Registry as soon as it opens, as satisfying s193(1); if it is reasonably possible to file first, rule 23 must be complied with.
13 Mar 2009

RE WILFRED ROYCE LANE

Citation

RE WILFRED ROYCE LANE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3631/2008

The petition was validly presented because the debtor was personally present in Hong Kong on presentation; the petitioner established proper authorisation by director affidavit so no cross-examination was necessary; the late and unproven offer to pay the petitioning debt under s6D(3) did not justify dismissal of the petition; the appropriate order was to adjourn with a conditional dismissal if the petitioning debt plus interest was paid by the adjourned date, otherwise a bankruptcy order should follow.
3 Jan 2008

RE FOOK HAU TRADING CO

Citation

RE FOOK HAU TRADING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7100/2006

On proper construction of the Bankruptcy Ordinance and Rules, service of a statutory demand on a firm comprising several partners does not suffice if effected on only some partners; there is no rule deeming service on one or more partners to be service on the firm. The petitioner also failed to do all that was reasonable to bring the demand to TMK's attention (no attempts to serve him in the Mainland and premature presentation of the petition), so service on TMK was not properly effected; accordingly the petition was dismissed.
14 Jan 2002

RE SUNTRIM INVESTMENT LTD.

Citation

RE SUNTRIM INVESTMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1055/2001

Because a statutory demand was served and remained unsatisfied, the petition was properly presented, no affidavit or contest was filed on behalf of the company, the court was satisfied to make the winding-up order.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE YIP KIM PO

RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS HK LTD

RE MF GLOBAL HONG KONG LTD

RE WILFRED ROYCE LANE

RE FOOK HAU TRADING CO

RE SUNTRIM INVESTMENT LTD.