Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Demand for payment

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2025

LEE ON WAI v. ATHORA LUX INVEST S.C.SP. - LOAN ORIGINATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1036
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD7/2024

Applicant failed to adduce credible evidence of a substantial dispute on liability or of a common mistake; the SDs sufficiently identified the basis of the debt and were validly served through the Agent; contractual clauses allocate risk to guarantors and waive defenses; residual discretion did not require intervention; late affidavit was inadmissible and would not have changed the outcome; application dismissed and creditors authorized to present bankruptcy petitions.
23 Aug 2008

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. PAU TING CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. PAU TING CHUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9949/2000

The court held that the 2nd guarantee was additional to the 1st, valid demands were made, CSB did not breach the March 2000 arrangement and was entitled to take possession and change locks, and the 3rd guarantee was valid because the bank did not instigate threats, had no constructive notice of alleged undue influence by the father, and the bank officer's unchallenged affirmation established proper explanation and witnessing of execution; accordingly defendants' defences of duress and undue influence fail and judgment is entered for the plaintiff for principal and interest with costs on an in…
17 Jul 2006

RE LONG TO COTTON YARN CO LTD

Citation

RE LONG TO COTTON YARN CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW46/2006

An unpaid judgment debt of $1,807,850 after a formal demand and failure to settle justified making a winding-up order; the petitioner's costs are to be paid out of the company's assets.
17 Jul 2006

RE CHEONG SHING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE LTD

Citation

RE CHEONG SHING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW222/2006

The court concluded the company was unable to pay its debts and that an adjournment would serve no useful purpose because the Wing Hong companies had, by their solicitors' letters, denied any payment within the period (or at all); accordingly the petition must be granted and the company wound up.
14 Nov 2005

RE ASSOCIATE KEY DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

RE ASSOCIATE KEY DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW690/2005

Because the Labour Tribunal award produced a due and undisputed debt which had been demanded and remained unpaid, and the company failed to settle the debt or appear at the final hearing, the court exercised its authority under the Companies Ordinance to wind up the company and ordered that the petitioner's costs be paid out of the company's assets.
1 Aug 2005

RE KOLDTECH DEVELOPMENT (INTERNATIONAL) LTD

Citation

RE KOLDTECH DEVELOPMENT (INTERNATIONAL) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW381/2005

Adjournment refused because the company failed to produce particulars of any bona fide scheme, evidence of creditor support or its financial position; petitioner proved an unsatisfied judgment debt with demand and the court ordered the company to be wound up with costs payable from company assets.
20 Jun 2005

RE SET PHONE LTD

Citation

RE SET PHONE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW148/2005

Petitioner proved entitlement to a winding-up order by establishing unpaid judgment debts and service of demand; the Company filed no evidence or defence and negotiations failed, therefore the court was satisfied that winding up was appropriate.
2 Aug 2004

RE WELL HARVEST HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE WELL HARVEST HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW390/2004

The Company failed to raise a bona fide dispute on the petitioning debt and, having been given leave to file further evidence, did not do so; therefore the court made a winding-up order against the Company and directed that the petitioner's costs be paid out of the Company's assets.
14 Jun 2004

RE GOLD WO MELAMINE PRODUCT CO LTD

Citation

RE GOLD WO MELAMINE PRODUCT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW31/2003

There was no viable restructuring proposal before the court and no evidence of in-principle support from the required statutory majority of creditors; the investor had terminated the earlier restructuring agreement and the Stock Exchange had imposed conditions making resumption unlikely. On that basis the court was satisfied winding-up orders should be made for each company.
1 Dec 2003

RE GAINWAY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

RE GAINWAY INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1069/2003

The court made a winding-up order because the judgment debt was established, a demand for payment was served and not complied with, the debt was not genuinely disputed at hearing, and no settlement or defence was advanced; petitioner’s costs ordered to be paid out of the company’s assets.