Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Priority between creditors

  • 22 Sept 2022

    LEE PO WING v. SEE WAH FAN

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 950
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP2897/2014

    The appeal was dismissed and the charging order nisi was correctly made absolute because the defendant failed to adduce any credible or documentary evidence that the beneficial interest had passed to the purported purchaser, the alleged payments were inconsistent with the provisional agreement, multiple charging orders registered after the purported completion date undermined the completion claim, and the issues raised related to creditor priority which did not prevent making the charging order absolute.

  • 7 Oct 2016

    LI HAILING v. TOO HUI CLOTHING TRADE CO., LTD

    Citation
    LI HAILING v. TOO HUI CLOTHING TRADE CO., LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1744/2016

    1609P was first in time at all relevant steps and no winding up petition had been presented by 1744P; a hearsay affidavit of contingent intention to commence winding up ‘if necessary’ and unsupported belief of insolvency were insufficient to displace the first garnishee order nisi. Therefore the court exercised its discretion to make the 1609 Order Nisi absolute, discharge the 1744 Order Nisi, and order costs against 1744P.

  • 22 May 2000

    ABN AMRO BANK N.V. v. CHIYU BANKING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ABN AMRO BANK N.V. v. CHIYU BANKING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2793/1999

    On construction the debenture's charging clause did not encompass fixed deposits and bank balances because including them would be commercially unworkable given the restrictive covenant; alternatively, even if covered, neither Chiyu nor Wing Hang had actual, constructive or inferable notice of the restrictive or automatic crystallisation clauses and therefore their subsequently created equitable fixed charges and exercise of set-off prevailed (including under the rule in Dearle v Hall); accordingly ABN's claim failed.