Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deemed insolvency

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2025

RE WELL SUPREME DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 919
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW378/2024

The petition was dismissed because the statutory demand relied on a shareholder loan that was not due and payable (recorded as a non-current liability and advanced for property investment), so s.178(1)(a) deeming could not apply; the petitioners failed to plead the factual basis for indebtedness being payable on demand and cannot rely on unpleaded matters in affidavits; presentation of the petition in those circumstances constituted an abuse of process.
19 May 2022

RE NERICO BROTHERS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1487
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW47/2022

Because the debt was undisputed and the statutory demand remained unsatisfied such that the company was deemed insolvent under s.178(1) CWUO, and because the company's repayment proposals were neither precise nor credible and management had caused removal of the funds and failed to recover them, the court was compelled to make a winding up order against the company.
8 Mar 2012

深圳巿均翔房地產經紀有限公司 v. HONGKONG ZHONGXING GROUP CO LTD

Citation

深圳巿均翔房地產經紀有限公司 v. HONGKONG ZHONGXING GROUP CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW256/2011

Failure to leave the statutory demand at the company’s registered office (Unit102 as recorded) meant the petitioner could not rely on deemed insolvency under s178(1)(a); however the petition was not strike‑out worthy because the petitioner retained a real prospect of proving insolvency by other means (inference from an unpaid undisputed debt) and defects in service of the petition were procedural irregularities curable under rule 209; amendments correcting registry‑recorded details permitted but not amendments that would contradict the petitioner’s own evidence (place of service).
5 Mar 2004

HOO CHEONG BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. JADE UNION INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

HOO CHEONG BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. JADE UNION INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW400/2003

The court found the company failed to establish that the bulk of its asserted set-offs and cross-claims were bona fide disputes of substance; only three items (direct payments to nominated sub-contractors HKD 7,131,253.50; liquidated damages HKD 1,372,197; defective window works HKD 844,100.86 — total HKD 9,347,551.36) had sufficient substance. The judge accepted upward adjustments to the company’s second draft final account, fixing the adjusted final account at HKD 61,131,649.27, less payments of HKD 36,855,550 leaving an indisputable balance of HKD 24,276,099.27 in favour of the petitioner.…

Hong Kong Case Law

RE WELL SUPREME DEVELOPMENT LTD

RE NERICO BROTHERS LTD

深圳巿均翔房地產經紀有限公司 v. HONGKONG ZHONGXING GROUP CO LTD

HOO CHEONG BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. JADE UNION INVESTMENT LTD