Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona fide dispute of debt

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2024

YEUNG MAN v. NEW WINNING FINANCE COMPANY LTD, (IN LIQUIDATION), a Creditor

Citation

[2024] HKCA 697
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV239/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds repeated unsuccessful, fact‑specific arguments already considered by the Court of Appeal, did not raise questions of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and there was no basis to disturb the Judge's finding that the debtor failed to raise a bona fide dispute; costs were ordered to the Petitioning Creditor to be summarily assessed, but not on an indemnity basis.
28 Jun 2024

CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, TIANJIN BRANCH AND OTHERS v. SILVER STARLIGHT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV265/2022

The Court held that (1) the alleged Overall Agreement was not credible and did not raise a bona fide dispute of the debt on substantial grounds; (2) the trial judge did not err in refusing to admit the late evidence relating to Peng and the alleged interference because it was late, insufficiently particularised and would unfairly prejudice the Banks; (3) prior interlocutory decisions (injunction and statutory demand rulings) and the Turner principle barred re‑litigation in the petition/winding up context absent materially new and cogent evidence; (4) the statutory thresholds for exercising wi…
28 Jun 2024

CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, TIANJIN BRANCH AND OTHERS v. SILVER STARLIGHT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP294/2022

The Court of Appeal held that (1) the late evidence alleging witness interference was properly excluded because of delay, lack of credibility and prejudice to the Banks; (2) prior judicial determinations and the Turner/principle against re‑litigation barred re‑opening issues already decided on the injunction and statutory demand applications absent material new evidence, which did not exist here; (3) even on the merits the alleged Overall Agreement was unsupported, contradicted by contemporaneous documents and not a bona fide dispute of the debt; (4) the Oaktree term sheet was non‑binding and…
14 May 2024

YEUNG MAN v. NEW WINNING FINANCE COMPANY LTD, (IN LIQUIDATION), a Creditor

Citation

[2024] HKCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV239/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to raise a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: the Repayment Arrangement, even if characterised as novation or contract, lacked evidence of the necessary consent and lacked evidence that Wen had authority (actual or apparent) to bind the Petitioner; the judge's detailed scrutiny of affirmations and documents was appropriate and his conclusion that the debtor's case was unbelievable was open to him.
25 Aug 2021

SILVER STARLIGHT LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, TIANJIN BRANCH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1248
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV301/2021

The Court held the plaintiff failed to show the petition would be bound to fail on jurisdictional grounds: the 35.59% shareholding in a Hong Kong company and related facts provided a sufficient connection and a reasonable possibility of benefit; the plaintiff failed to prove a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as the alleged Overall Agreement was implausible and contradicted contemporaneous documents and loan instruments; the application to adduce new evidence was refused for inexcusable delay and lack of credibility; consequently the injunction was refused and the appeal dismissed.
28 May 2020

CHINA LATIN (INTERNATIONAL) ENGINEERING CO LTD v. KEYES GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2/2020

China Latin failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because its assertion of an oral variation was unsubstantiated and contradicted by a contemporaneous Event of Default Demand Letter which was not disclosed in ex parte proceedings; accordingly the injunction was discharged and the application dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.
27 Feb 2018

ARTECH DEVELOPMENT LTD v. POSISMO LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 344
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW43/2017

The Company failed to discharge the burden of proving a bona fide substantial dispute: evidence did not establish that Mr Yamada controlled the Petitioner or that the Petitioner shared a common intention that the Loan Agreement be a sham, nor was there evidence of a clear unequivocal promise giving rise to promissory estoppel; accordingly the petition debt stood and a winding up order was appropriate.
20 Mar 2017

RE FAME DRAGON INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

RE FAME DRAGON INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW373/2016

Contemporaneous documentary evidence unambiguously established an enforceable US$50,000,000 loan with agreed terms and security; there was no substantive evidence that the advance was a capital contribution or a sham, and third-party pledge does not independently bar a winding-up order, therefore the petitioner was entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding-up order against the company.
30 Aug 2013

RE LI MAN HOO

Citation

RE LI MAN HOO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV83/2012

Section 4(4) of the Limitation Ordinance must be construed so that 'action' bears its wide statutory meaning and includes bankruptcy petitions and other enforcement proceedings; therefore a judgment debt more than 12 years old is statute‑barred and cannot found a bankruptcy petition (and only interest accruing within six years may be claimed). The petitions were therefore invalid and the bankruptcy orders were set aside.
22 Jan 2013

RE FANCY OCEAN LTD

Citation

RE FANCY OCEAN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW35/2012

The respondent discharged the burden of showing that the alleged debts were bona fide disputed on substantial grounds; the court could not summarily determine the disputed factual and legal nature of the transactions and therefore dismissed the winding-up petition rather than adjudicate the debt on the petition hearing.