Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Winding up petition

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

RE WELIFE TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1044
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW63/2025

The petition was dismissed because the claimed liability was not a presently enforceable liquidated sum: the Remuneration Agreement contemplated payment by issuance of shares subject to SEHK approval and did not create an unconditional cash liability of RMB 9.4 million; furthermore the Company raised bona fide, substantial disputes supported by absence of documentary evidence of services and expenses, unresolved SEHK enquiries and questions over director authority which require full investigation at trial, rendering summary winding up inappropriate.
28 Oct 2025

VPOWER GROUP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v. CRRC HONG KONG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 952
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP118/2025

The court held there was no reasonable prospect of success on the proposed appeal: the finance lease arrangements were not shown to be sham loans caught by the MLO and contemporaneous documents supported their characterisation as sale and leaseback transactions; even if characterized as loans exemptions under the MLO were potentially available; the statutory demands were not invalid merely because of apportionment or joint liability issues and VP ListCo’s liability under the Guarantee (or VPG’s joint promise) sufficed to support insolvency allegations; accordingly leave to appeal was refused…
28 Oct 2025

VPOWER GROUP HOLDINGS LTD v. CRRC HONG KONG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 952
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP117/2025

There is no reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal because the evidence and contemporaneous documents demonstrate the finance lease arrangements were genuine sale and leaseback transactions rather than loans caught by the MLO, the joint liability and guarantee arguments do not undermine CRRC’s standing to present a petition or the sufficiency of the statutory demands for present purposes, and no arguable basis exists to overturn the interlocutory refusal of injunction; accordingly leave to appeal is dismissed.
26 Sept 2025

AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. SKK (H.K.) CO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP322/2025

The court granted the injunction because the Plaintiff discharged the burden of proving that the debts claimed in SD2 were bona fide disputed on substantial grounds and that the Defendant was, by the hearing date, sufficiently aware of those disputes so that presentation of a petition would be an abuse of process; the Defendant was ordered to pay 95% of the Plaintiff's costs of the Summons on an indemnity basis (5% discount for matters relating to SD1 and SD3).
17 Sept 2025

RE WINFILL BUILD CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4359
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW290/2025

Given the evidence that the Company is trading, has sufficient funds in the frozen Designated Accounts to meet the Total Liabilities, has identified creditors and undertook to pay outstanding employee debts and to file audited accounts, the court was satisfied the Company is solvent and that a validation order would be beneficial; the validation order was therefore granted conditional on payment of specified debts within 14 days and filing audited financial statements within 56 business days.
19 Aug 2025

RE CHINA SOUTH CITY HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3719
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW54/2025

Debt was undisputed and statutory demand unmet so the Company was deemed insolvent; the Company failed to produce a concrete restructuring proposal with requisite creditor support (notably AHG holding 37.6%) and made no case that further adjournment would be of utility; therefore the petitioner was entitled to an immediate winding up order.
11 Aug 2025

RE POWER EASE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW357/2022

The petition was dismissed because the company established a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: the Security Deed was unenforceable for want of authority as Ye had no actual authority and the petitioner failed to prove apparent authority or estoppel by convention; the alleged misrepresentation was not supported by admissible evidence of reliance and inducement.
18 Jun 2025

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, LONDON BRANCH v. XJ INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 481
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV372/2024

The Court held it was at least reasonably arguable that, given the Trust Deed, Conditions and Global Certificate definitions, 'holder of this Global Certificate' could properly be construed as the registered holder (the Nominee Company); absence of evidence that the Nominee gave the requisite notice (or presented the Global Certificate) meant a bona fide dispute existed on substantial grounds as to the petitioned debt, justifying dismissal of the winding up petition.
8 May 2025

DIXIE ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD v. LONG ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP109/2025

Plaintiff obtained by issuing the originating summons the practical result it sought (the statutory demand was withdrawn) and therefore is entitled to its costs; no basis to deny costs where defendant did not show pre-proceedings inquiry and the court should not engage in speculative counterfactual inquiries into alternative conduct of the parties.
25 Apr 2025

KEYNE LTD v. JOVIAL PARADISE LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1565/2024

The Company failed to demonstrate that presentation of a winding up petition would be an abuse of process because it produced no substantive defence, the alleged repayments were reasonably arguable as payments on behalf of other counterparties, and Jovial lawfully retained the right to enforce the security; accordingly the quia timet injunctions were refused and the summonses and actions dismissed with costs to the defendant.