Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Creditor petition

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2022

RE TIAN SHAN DEVELOPMENT (HOLDING) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3084
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW484/2021

Because the debt was due and unpaid, the Company failed to file timely and substantive evidence to oppose the petition, the three core requirements for winding up an overseas company in Hong Kong were satisfied on the facts pleaded, and the company gave only vague unsupported evidence of asset sales, the court was compelled to make a winding-up order to allow liquidators to preserve, collect and realise assets for the benefit of creditors.
10 May 2019

RE CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1617
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW166/2018

The petitioner failed to demonstrate special circumstances sufficient to displace the majority preference for a creditors' voluntary liquidation; concerns about KPMG's independence and the need for investigation of transactions did not justify conversion because such investigations can properly be conducted within the CVL and there was no evidence of likely partiality; accordingly the petition was stayed with liberty to apply and costs ordered nisi to be paid from company assets.
24 Sept 2007

RE TOWN\'S INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

RE TOWN\'S INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW328/2007

The statutory demand based on the Labour Tribunal award was properly served and not complied with, the debt was established and unopposed, and the Company failed to file evidence or obtain leave for representation; accordingly the court made a winding-up order and directed that the petitioner's costs be paid out of the Company's assets.
13 Dec 2004

RE G & G HONG KONG LTD

Citation

RE G & G HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW817/2004

The court ordered winding up because a debt evidenced by a Labour Tribunal award remained unpaid after demand and after adjournments and warnings, and the company failed to appear and pay the reduced award, thus meeting the statutory ground for compulsory winding up under the Companies Ordinance.
23 Feb 2004

RE SENOX INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

RE SENOX INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1383/2003

The court refused the adjournment because the proposed HK$8 million injection was wholly insufficient to satisfy a judgment debt of about HK$79 million, there was no documentary evidence of the investor or offer, and therefore it was appropriate to wind up the company; petitioner's costs to be paid out of the company's assets.
15 Oct 2001

RE NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD.

Citation

RE NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW732/2001

Because the petitioner demonstrated an unpaid debt supported by an unsatisfied statutory demand and the company did not file evidence or oppose the petition, the court granted the usual winding-up order.
1 Dec 1983

RE CHING YAT WASHING

Citation

RE CHING YAT WASHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB211/1983

The court accepted the debtors' evidence as more credible, found the unpaid preferential sums did not exceed the statutory cap under the Bankruptcy Ordinance, and therefore dismissed the petition and refused a receiving order.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE TIAN SHAN DEVELOPMENT (HOLDING) LTD

RE CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD

RE TOWN\'S INDUSTRIAL LTD

RE G & G HONG KONG LTD

RE SENOX INVESTMENT LTD

RE NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD.

RE CHING YAT WASHING