Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set-off/cross-claim

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2025

RE SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1121
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW3/2025

Where a petition is founded on interlocutory costs orders made payable forthwith or within 14 days after summary assessment, such costs orders are to be treated as free-standing and readily enforceable separate matters; an ongoing unliquidated main claim does not ordinarily constitute a valid cross-claim or set-off to resist a winding up petition based on those costs orders absent injustice or exceptional circumstances; accordingly the petition succeeded and a winding up order was made and the director was joined for costs only.
22 Nov 2018

HONGFAN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HONG KONG YAHE CO., LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2565
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1633/2017

The Unless Order is a binding compromise/consent order that embodied express and implied admissions by Hongfan (including admission of the petitioning debt and its due date); Hongfan's irrevocable undertaking abandoning its defences is enforceable and cannot be set aside except on traditional vitiating grounds applicable to contracts or with leave of the court upon change of circumstances properly established. The interlocutory restraint on Yahe was justified pending determination of the originating summons.
25 Jan 2016

RE SHANG LILI

Citation

RE SHANG LILI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB5329/2014

The debtor failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or to provide believable, precise evidence undermining the Lands Tribunal judgment; there was no evidence of fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice, the alleged move and redelivery of possession were contradicted by contemporaneous messages, records and utility account closure, and the asserted cross-claim lacked quantification and substance; accordingly the petition succeeded and a bankruptcy order was made.
27 Nov 2006

HOEPFUL MEAT LTD v. TAI PO FROZEN MEAT CO LTD

Citation

HOEPFUL MEAT LTD v. TAI PO FROZEN MEAT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW489/2006

Because the statutory demand was not complied with and the Company declined to pay the judgment debt, and because there was no bona fide cross-claim or set-off (no property of the Company had passed to the Petitioner) and an intended appeal does not stay execution or show sufficient prejudice, the court exercised its discretion to make a winding-up order against the Company with costs.
19 Jan 2005

RE PROJECT GLOBAL LTD

Citation

RE PROJECT GLOBAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1070/2003

Service at the address recorded in the Companies Registry was effective; the Company demonstrated bona fide disputes on substantial grounds across multiple invoice categories requiring adjudication; the petition therefore could not proceed and must be struck out.
18 Dec 2003

RE COSMOS MANOR DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

RE COSMOS MANOR DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW894/2003

The Company failed to establish any genuine or valid set-off or cross-claim: its pleaded variations and provisional deductions lacked evidential support, the Recorder found the case not genuine, the Company defaulted in ordered payments and did not provide security for costs, and therefore the Company was unable to pay its debts and must be wound up.
12 Nov 2003

RE BLUE SKY INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

RE BLUE SKY INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1407/2002

Recorder Leong found the Company failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds and declined to accept the director's withdrawal of his prior admission as adequately explained; accordingly a winding-up order (order nisi) was appropriate because the statutory test for resisting a winding-up petition was not met.
13 May 2002

RE HORIZON GROUP INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

RE HORIZON GROUP INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW109/2002

The Convention award qualified under Part IV of the Arbitration Ordinance and, by virtue of s42(2), could be relied upon as a defence or set-off; the company demonstrated a cross-claim/ set-off well in excess of the petitioning debt, therefore the winding-up petition must be dismissed.
3 Jan 2002

PERIWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. GRANDFIELD PACIFIC HOTEL LTD.

Citation

PERIWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. GRANDFIELD PACIFIC HOTEL LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW29/2001

The Company failed to adduce sufficiently precise, contemporaneous and credible evidence to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or a genuine cross claim equal to or exceeding the petition debt; allegations of a standstill agreement were disbelieved; therefore the petitioner was entitled to the contractual rent (HK$53,000,000) and a winding-up order was made.
24 Sept 1999

WAI SHUN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD.

Citation

WAI SHUN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT110/1998

The defendant had genuinely arguable cross-claims only to the extent of just under $3.3 million (overpayment and testing fees), but had no genuinely arguable cross-claim in respect of the Shun Cheong judgment of $3,157,581.73 because the defendant had no contractual basis to set off that sum against the plaintiff; accordingly the plaintiff satisfied the Shanning test for an interim payment of $3,000,000 and the court properly exercised its discretion to order that sum be paid pending trial.