Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third‑party security

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

YEUNG SO LAI v. ART EXCEL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 957
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV413/2024

The exemption in Part 2 Schedule 1 para 2(a) of the Money Lenders Ordinance applies to a loan made to a company that is secured by a mortgage registered or to be registered under the Companies Ordinance irrespective of whether the registered security is provided by the borrower or a third party; accordingly the loan was an exempted loan, the respondent was not a 'money lender' in respect of that loan under the MLO, and the statutory demand was valid — the Judge's setting aside on the unlicensed money‑lender ground was wrong and is set aside, allowing the appeal.
8 Aug 2025

RE RENCO HOLDING GROUP LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW235/2025

Because a substantial debt in excess of HK$680 million was due and unpaid and the company failed to pay, and because the alleged oral collateral agreement was unsupported and contradicted by the written Loan Agreement, the statutory demand and petition were sufficient, third‑party security did not defeat the petition, and the jurisdictional threshold for winding up a foreign company was met, the court made a winding up order against the company.
5 Sept 2024

GG v. LL Ltd

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD21/2024

The statutory demand was set aside because the applicant demonstrated a substantial defence that the lender was not a licensed money lender and the loan did not fall within the Schedule 1 Part 2 para 2(a) exemption, rendering the loan unrecoverable under s.23 MLO; this defence was sufficient at the SD stage to require the SD to be set aside notwithstanding availability of third-party security.
31 Oct 2019

X v. Y

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD25/2019

The statutory demand was not set aside because the Listco Shares held by a third party (N) cannot be treated as the Debtor's security under r48(5)(c); the Debtor is a primary obligor under the guarantee so a prospective claim by N against the receivers does not defeat the Creditor's locus to present a bankruptcy petition; proceeds realised were insufficient to satisfy the debt; accordingly r48(5)(d) and extension were not engaged to justify setting aside the demand.
24 Jan 2019

RE TAM SHUK YI FANNY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7402/2017

Third‑party security (legal charge and security deeds) does not render the petitioner a secured creditor under section 2 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance and therefore does not constitute a defence to the statutory demands; no valid defence was established and bankruptcy orders were properly made.
24 Jan 2019

RE TAM SIU LEUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6860/2017

The statutory demands sought net unsecured balances and, as a matter of law, third-party security does not render the petitioner a secured creditor under section 2 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; therefore the Debtors had no valid defence and bankruptcy orders were properly made.
24 Jan 2019

RE CHEUNG SUNG KEI CIVIC

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7403/2017

Because the securities and legal charge were provided by third parties and not the debtors, the petitioner was not a 'secured creditor' of the debtors under Bankruptcy Ordinance s2; third-party security is irrelevant to the validity of the statutory demands and the debtors raised no valid defence, so bankruptcy orders were properly made.
21 Jun 2018

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GUANXIANG (HK) TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1767/2017

The court will proceed with the substantive hearing of the Originating Summons notwithstanding an intervening summons by a third party; the plaintiff may pursue summary determination of monetary claims, but no possession order should be made without hearing the third party claiming actual occupation and resolving contested issues of misrepresentation and informed consent.
19 Nov 2003

JOHN WANG v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH

Citation

JOHN WANG v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD22/2003

Applicants failed to show substantial legal or factual grounds: the illegality claim was speculative and unsupported by evidence and in any event continuing running facilities meant s.69A exempted post‑March 1984 credit so guarantees remained enforceable; discovery application was rightly characterised as fishing; Indonesian land is third‑party property not security of the applicants for BR r.44/48 purposes; undue influence was not established nor was the bank on inquiry or shown to have an agent relationship with the influencer; therefore the statutory demands were properly dismissed.
13 Jan 2003

RE INTERACT CONTRACTING CO. LTD.

Citation

RE INTERACT CONTRACTING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1182/2002

The judge held that the Company was indebted and had been served with a statutory demand; the third-party security and appointment of receivers over third-party property were irrelevant to the petition. There being no valid ground of opposition, a winding-up order was warranted and made against the Company.