Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-claim

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

RE SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 152
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2025

Special circumstances existed by reason of the Company's insolvency and inability to satisfy costs orders; the Company failed to demonstrate sufficient countervailing factors (its appeal was at best arguable) to displace the presumption for security; accordingly the Company must procure its former directors Ms Yung Mei Chun and/or Mr Cheung Moon Hoi to pay into court HK$650,000 as security for costs of the appeal.
13 Nov 2025

AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. WING YIP BUILDING MATERIALS & ENGINEERING CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5586
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP446/2025

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…
23 Apr 2024

ARJOWIGGINS HKK 2 LTD v. SHANDONG CHENMING PAPER HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 352
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV347/2023

The Court held that the principle in Guy Lam applies to cross-claims as well as disputes about the petition debt: where the dispute underlying a cross-claim falls within a valid arbitration agreement, the court should ordinarily decline to decide the matter and stay or dismiss the winding-up petition pending arbitration, absent abuse of process or countervailing public interest factors.
18 Sept 2023

RE QU HAIPING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1051/2023

The debtor failed to rebut the prima facie debt established by judgment because the alleged defences and purported appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success, the claimed return-of-shares remedy is in specie and not commensurable nor mutually enforceable against the petitioner, the debtor produced no credible evidence of inability to pay, and the petitioner did not hold the shares as security; accordingly a bankruptcy order was appropriate.
11 Sept 2023

RE WINTAC (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2323
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW164/2023

The Company failed to comply with the statutory demand and did not discharge the burden of showing a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or any valid ground to adjourn or stay the petition; there was no credible evidence that the Petitioner held security for the debt; accordingly the Company was deemed insolvent and a usual winding-up order was made.
18 Jan 2023

RE ZPMC-RED BOX ENERGY SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 161
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW368/2021

The court held that RBF’s pursuit of Ground 2 (the cross-claim and attribution of dishonesty) was unreasonable and lacked any serious or substantial basis and that RBF’s adjournment application was without a concrete proposal; those unreasonable steps caused a significant unwarranted increase in costs. Accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to require RBF to pay 40% of the petitioner’s costs occasioned by RBF’s opposition and adjournment (certificate for two counsel, taxed if not agreed) and 40% of the petitioner’s costs of the present application, with the remaining petition costs to be…
15 Jun 2022

RE SILVER BASE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD (銀基國際發展有限公司) (THE “COMPANY”)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1793
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW328/2021

The Company failed to rebut the presumption of liability on the dishonoured cheque and did not demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or a genuine and serious cross-claim sufficient to defeat the petition; a cross-claim arising out of separate contracts does not justify retention of the petitioner’s money or refusal to pay a cheque; petitioner therefore entitled to a winding-up order subject to a 14-day adjournment for payment.
1 Apr 2022

RE HONGKONG BAI YUAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CO., LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 960
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW219/2021

The court held there was no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the EUR955,000 Debt: the payment condition was met on 15 January 2021, no contractual right to withhold payment was identified, the discoloration insurance settlement and alleged cross-claims did not establish a defence to the Debt, and therefore the statutory demand was valid; Company was ordered to pay within 14 days or petitioner may restore the petition leading to a usual winding order.
29 Mar 2022

RE PACIFIC CULTURAL HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT (HK) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 905
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW176/2020

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner misused winding-up proceedings: the claimed debt was not a clearly liquidated sum at the date of presentation, the statutory demand was defective in particulars, there was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds (including variation of the payment date and non-performance by Petitioner), and the Company had a serious cross-claim that could affect entitlement to the balance; accordingly the Petitioner lacked locus to present the petition.
3 Nov 2021

RE ASK RE LTD (Company Number 1056098)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3310
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW445/2020

The Company failed to establish any bona fide defence on substantial grounds or to show that the Petitioner assumed advisory duties; the asserted cross‑claim was not substantiated and the alleged loss did not exceed the petition debt; accordingly the winding up petition succeeded and the court made the normal winding up order.