17 Apr 2026
On a holistic evaluation of all evidence and permissible inferences the Court was satisfied the Company raised bona fide disputes on substantial ground in relation to all three Loan Agreements — namely that they were sham arrangements intended to disguise cross‑border fund flows — and accordingly the Amended Petition was dismissed and costs awarded to the Company.
4 Mar 2026
The Petition was dismissed because (1) the promissory note contained a forum-selection clause demonstrating the parties intended Texas jurisdiction and the Petitioner was bound by acceptance of the note; (2) the Company established a bona fide substantial dispute (fraud, misrepresentation and sham) as to the validity/enforceability of the note such that the debt was not established; (3) presentation of the Petition in Hong Kong in those circumstances constituted an abuse of process and the Petitioner lacked locus as a creditor; and (4) the Petitioner’s authority to present the Petition was ta…
5 Feb 2026
The Company demonstrated a bona fide defence because the documents relied upon did not constitute valid section 43D notices and there were no Labour Tribunal awards or orders to engage s43C/s43F; the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient particulars in the petition after the Company had disputed the statutory demand; accordingly the Petitioner could not prove the Debt and the winding-up petition was dismissed with costs to the Company on an indemnity basis with a certificate for counsel.
26 Jan 2026
The Company failed to produce sufficiently credible, precise and particularised evidence that funds would be available within a reasonable time; therefore an adjournment was refused and the Petitioner was entitled to a usual winding-up order under s177(1)(d) Cap.32.
23 Jan 2026
Given the Company's failure to comply with Rule 32(1) and absence of satisfactory explanation for the delay, and having regard to longstanding practice and the need to protect the petition process and third parties, it was proper to impose a substantial payment condition as the price for leave to file evidence out of time; the Company's proposed grounds centering on jurisdictional clause did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success and would not have avoided the need for security at the time of the hearing.
24 Dec 2025
The petition was dismissed because the company established a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds that the Waiver Deed (on its proper construction and given agency arguments) may have waived the petition debt, and because there was at least an arguable binding arbitration agreement with genuine intention to arbitrate; applying the multi-factorial discretion in Simplicity & Vogue and Guy Lam, the court declined to exercise its winding-up jurisdiction and dismissed the petition rather than stay it pending prolonged jurisdictional litigation in arbitration.
12 Dec 2025
The Company failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: contemporaneous documents and post-contract conduct (payments, receipt of loan into the Company’s account and the 14 February 2025 letter) establish the Company as the counterparty to the Loan Agreement, there is no reliable evidence the Petitioner was an unlicensed moneylender, and the unpaid loan principal alone sufficed to found the petition, therefore a winding-up order was justified.
13 Nov 2025
The court granted a quia timet injunction restraining the Defendant from presenting/taking out/advertising any winding-up petition based on the 1st statutory demand because the Plaintiff demonstrated a bona fide and arguable cross-claim (supported by HKHA's List of Outstanding Works) that may exceed the 1st SD; the court refused an injunction in respect of the 2nd statutory demand because the Plaintiff failed to show on substantial grounds that the payment application had not been received by its commercial department and an adverse inference was drawn from Plaintiff's failure to call relevan…
10 Nov 2025
The Court dismissed the appeal: HASDA failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. The primary judge was entitled to reject the asserted oral 'pay-when-paid' agreement and industry practice, to regard the text messages and industry witness evidence as insufficiently probative, and to find the 30-day contractual payment term and the parties' conduct inconsistent with the alleged collateral arrangement; no palpable error justified appellate intervention.
16 Oct 2025
The court, treating the Company as solvent and carrying on an active group business, granted a validation order limited to payments in the ordinary course of business and to reasonable legal expenses incurred in these proceedings, subject to safeguards (monthly statements and inspection rights), but refused validation for payments to implement the proposed share repurchase scheme because such payments are not shown to be ordinary course, involve speculative and significant sums without adequate disclosure, and supporting documents were unduly redacted and inadequately explained.