2 Apr 2026
The debtor was precluded from relying on the late-amended ground because she paid the court-ordered costs less than 24 hours before the hearing, preventing the creditor from filing a reply and indicating tactical conduct; no other grounds remained and the debt established by the statutory demand stood, so a bankruptcy order was properly made.
19 Mar 2026
The petitioner proved a valid statutory demand and reasonable service; the debtor failed to discharge the burden to show a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds with credible contemporaneous evidence; the promissory note and the debtor's conduct establish liability; accordingly a bankruptcy order should be made.
13 Mar 2026
Given the Wife's absence, bankruptcy, alleged retention of estate proceeds, failure to account and the need to secure and pursue the estate's significant remaining right of action (medical negligence claim), the court was satisfied under s.33 PAO that removal of the administratrix and appointment of the Son was necessary for the due and effective administration of the estate and protection of beneficiaries' interests.
16 Feb 2026
On the pleaded facts the plaintiff and predecessor demonstrated continuous and exclusive physical control (enclosure, structures, utilities, use and payment of expenses) together with an intention to possess the Blue Land to the exclusion of the registered owner for a period exceeding 12 years, thereby extinguishing the defendant's title under the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347); procedural rules permitting omission of service in default of acknowledgement of service justified proceeding in the defendant's absence, so default judgment and declarations were properly granted.
13 Feb 2026
The statutory demand was not validly served because the petitioner did not do all that was reasonable to effect personal service and the documents were handed to the wrong person without adequate identity verification; the petition itself was also defectively served; the defective service of the statutory demand renders the petition unsustainable and the amended petition was not shown to regularise the defect; additionally a bona fide substantial dispute of undue influence existed; accordingly the amended petition is dismissed and costs awarded to the debtor.
6 Feb 2026
The Court concluded there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement under PRC law because the applicability of Civil Code Article 490 to the parties' email and draft contract exchanges raises a legitimate issue for the Beijing Court; there was no material non‑disclosure in the ex parte application; substituted service was justified and the Defendant's summons to set it aside is dismissed; accordingly the continuation of the ex parte injunction is warranted and costs are awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
12 Jan 2026
Plaintiff proved it acted in good faith and took reasonable steps to notify owners since October 2023; defendants failed to respond or claim the goods; therefore the plaintiff is entitled to dispose of the Left Properties at will and to recover costs of disposal and costs of the action from the defendants; a declaration of abandonment was unnecessary and is not granted.
7 Jan 2026
The plaintiff’s pleaded facts, which are impliedly admitted by the defendant’s failure to defend, establish factual possession and animus since November 1984 and exceed the 12-year limitation period under the Limitation Ordinance, thereby extinguishing the defendant’s right to recover the land and entitling the plaintiff to declarations of extinguishment and an indefeasible possessory title; default judgment is appropriate in these circumstances.
2 Jan 2026
The Court applied established authority (Tsit Wing) and s25(3)(b) and found the Applicant's factual and legal grounds insufficient to displace the ordinary practice: security for costs of HK$400,000 was ordered for each of the 1st and 2nd Respondents; other respondents who did not participate below were not required to be secured provided the Applicant files affirmations of service for specified respondents; the Milmo point did not warrant a different order and did not materially alter hearing complexity or costs justification for security.
15 Dec 2025
The petitioner possessed and/or should have disclosed material information about the debtor's alternative Hong Kong addresses and Australian contact details and intention to migrate; those facts were relevant to the court's weighing when granting leave to present the petition and a substituted service order. The non-disclosure was material and fatal to the leave and substituted service order; therefore the petition was irregularly presented and the bankruptcy order must be annulled under s33(1)(a).