Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory demand and bankruptcy petition

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2020

NEW CASTLE INVESTMENTS LTD v. WFC HOLDING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 755
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP52/2020

Clause 5.03 does not effect an automatic extinguishment or set-off of the tenant's liability for rent; it creates a deemed reduction in the amount of the deposit for the limited purposes of calculating the sum repayable under clause 5.04 and giving the landlord a right to demand topping-up. On that construction the defendants had no real prospect of success and the Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, restored the Default Judgment and granted leave (including brief extension of time) to appeal.
18 Dec 2007

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHEN JIANREN

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHEN JIANREN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2844/2001

Master's order renewing the writ and deeming service on 16 November 2006 is upheld: the writ could not be renewed under O.6 r.8 but exceptional facts justified relief under O.2 r.1 and O.3 r.5; the Defendant received notice via his solicitors, suffered no prejudice, and Plaintiff's efforts to serve from its records were reasonable, therefore renewal and deemed service were proper and appeal dismissed.
10 Sept 2002

SHANDONG XIXAKOU GROUP CORPORATION v. WONG YIM KAU

Citation

SHANDONG XIXAKOU GROUP CORPORATION v. WONG YIM KAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9758/1999

The defendant failed to demonstrate that Master Yuen's order was made in his absence or that the judgment was a default judgment; the documentary and affirmation evidence showed the defendant received the sums via his company and applied them in ways inconsistent with his pleaded defences, rendering his defence shadowy and contradictory; therefore conditional leave to defend was properly imposed and not satisfied, the judgment was properly entered and the court refused to enlarge time for appeal because delay was excessive, reasons unconvincing, prejudice to plaintiff existed and the appeal l…
30 Jul 1999

RE QUE JOCELYN CO

Citation

RE QUE JOCELYN CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB612/1999

The court found Finley in serious dereliction of duty for failing to serve the Statement of Claim in time, failing to advise and disclose the consequences and a conflict of interest, thereby establishing personal liability under O.62 r.8(1); the Master's order making Finley personally liable was affirmed but varied to require Finley to pay the taxed costs to the Plaintiff and to repay fees; the bankruptcy petition was stayed on condition that the Plaintiff pays the Defendant the statutory demand amount within 28 days.

Hong Kong Case Law

NEW CASTLE INVESTMENTS LTD v. WFC HOLDING LTD AND OTHERS

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHEN JIANREN

SHANDONG XIXAKOU GROUP CORPORATION v. WONG YIM KAU

RE QUE JOCELYN CO