Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Provisional liquidators

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2026

ZHENG TING (鄭汀) v. CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LIMITED

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV146/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the impugned determinations that the transfer documents and related resolutions were backdated and therefore void for want of authority, and alternatively voidable for breach of fiduciary duties, were open on the evidence and within the proper scope of the preliminary issues; the applicants' complaints about scope, burden reversal and credibility were unfounded and not reasonably arguable.
12 Feb 2026

ZHENG TING (鄭汀) v. CHINA STEM CELLS (SOUTH) COMPANY LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS)

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV144/2025

The judge was entitled to assess collateral evidence and make credibility findings necessary to decide the agreed preliminary issues; on the evidence the Impugned Documents were created on or after 29 September 2022 and backdated and therefore void for want of authority, and alternatively even if created earlier they were procured in breach of fiduciary duty and voidable; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
12 Feb 2026

ZHENG TING (鄭汀) v. CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LIMITED

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV143/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed questions were case-specific and not reasonably arguable: the judge lawfully considered collateral evidence only insofar as necessary to assess credibility and to decide whether the impugned documents were backdated or procured in breach of fiduciary duty; objective evidence supported the backdating finding (rendering the documents void) and, alternatively, the breach finding (rendering them voidable), disposing of the case; no legal error warranting leave was shown.
12 Feb 2026

CHEN BING CHUEN ALBERT (陳炳泉) v. CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LIMITED

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV141/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge permissibly considered evidence relevant to the credibility of the applicants' account and correctly found on objective evidence that the Impugned Documents were backdated and therefore void for want of authority, and alternatively that they were procured in breach of fiduciary duties making them voidable; the scope complaint and burden complaints were unfounded and the proposed questions were case-specific and not reasonably arguable.
10 Oct 2025

X v. Y

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4796
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT76/2025

The court granted an anti-suit injunction restraining the BVI winding-up (WU) proceedings because the Defendant had adopted the Subscription Agreement and its Hong Kong-seated HKIAC arbitration clause (and was estopped from denying it), the factual precursors of the WU Application are arbitrable under the Arbitration Agreement and FamilyMart, and there were no discretionary reasons to refuse relief; the PL Application was not restrained because it falls outside the Arbitration Agreement and the BVI court may have jurisdiction to appoint provisional liquidators.
7 Feb 2025

RE PHYSICAL BEAUTY & FITNESS HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW627/2024

Both companies were insolvent on the evidence of statutory demands and adjusted balance sheets; a usual winding-up order was appropriate. Provisional liquidators were appointed over Physical BVI to secure and receive sale proceeds under the SPAs pending investigation of ownership and allocation because the assets and proceeds were at risk and the court accepted Luk’s undertaking but refused to discharge it. A regulating order under ss.227A and 227B was justified to appoint the PLs as liquidators of Physical HK for reasons of continuity, efficiency and because they were fit and supported by ma…
7 Feb 2025

RE PHYSICAL HEALTH CENTRE HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW629/2024

Usual winding-up orders were made because the Companies were insolvent as shown by statutory demands and the balance sheet and cashflow positions; provisional liquidators were justified to protect sale proceeds under SPAs that involved assets of subsidiaries and where the ownership and receipt of proceeds were in doubt; the director’s undertaking was not discharged absent unforeseeable change; a regulating order was appropriate to appoint the PLs as liquidators of Physical HK to continue investigations and protect creditors.
17 Jan 2025

SINO CENTURY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. STRONG PETROCHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP66/2025

The court granted the interim injunction because the chairperson's adjournment was founded on an incorrect factual premise about voting entitlement (contradicted by the 3rd defendant's own BVI affirmation acknowledging no valid resolution could be passed by Forever Winner), creating a real risk the EGM would be further frustrated; the balance of convenience favoured permitting the EGM to proceed and restraining any purported exercise of the 49% voting bloc pending the BVI provisional liquidators' application or further order; leave to appeal was dismissed and no stay granted.
27 Dec 2024

BILLION WELL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD v. LONG FAITH ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3712
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW32/2022

The summonses were dismissed because the Petitioner unacceptably delayed and failed to warn Chu/Koo of the intended costs application, and on the merits the Petitioner did not establish that Chu/Koo were the real parties who personally benefited or engaged in the requisite serious impropriety causatively linked to costs; additionally costs for conduct after the winding-up could not properly be pursued without addressing statutory procedural constraints (s.186 CWUMPO).
21 Jun 2024

ACROPOLIS LTD v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1645
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW218/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal had no prospect of success: it sought to overturn findings of fact that were coherent and supported by the evidence, and the conclusions were within the scope of the evidence and preliminary issues; costs were awarded to the Petitioner and 14th Respondent and quantified at HK$70,000 to be paid by the Former Provisional Liquidators.