Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Floating charge

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2025

RE R&F PROPERTIES (HK) COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW483/2024

The petitions were dismissed because the petitioner is a secured creditor whose security covers substantially all assets of the companies so it has no real interest in a winding up; there are no free assets for unsecured creditors; the alleged causes of action were unpleaded and in any event are assets subject to the secured creditors' floating charge; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the petitions and ordered costs against the petitioner.
22 May 2015

BASAB INC. AND ANOTHER v. SUPERB GLORY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BASAB INC. AND ANOTHER v. SUPERB GLORY HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV256/2014

The court drew a strong inference of impecuniosity from the enforcement history, absence of evidence from plaintiffs, statutory demand and evasion; the Farrer point carried little weight because the appeal was only arguable and not shown to have real and substantial merits; accordingly security for costs was ordered in the agreed sum of $580,000 payable within 42 days, with a stay of the appeal until lodgement and dismissal if security not provided.
30 Jun 2014

RE KB (ASIA) LTD

Citation

RE KB (ASIA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP307/2013

The Scheme was not sanctioned because the court was not satisfied that the classes were properly constituted: Rak Industries Limited, as holder of a floating charge over receivables, had legal rights materially dissimilar to unsecured creditors and should not have been treated as part of the unsecured class; additionally related/family creditors had collateral interests so their votes should be discounted; as a result a statutory majority was not achieved and the Scheme failed.
4 Jun 2008

ACTIVE BASE LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND OTHERS

Citation

ACTIVE BASE LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW470/2005

The court found the Loan Agreement and Debenture were not validly authorised or enforceable against Moulin because the purported board approval was not properly notified and Active Base was put on inquiry; apparent authority, due execution and Turquand protections did not apply. Further, even if otherwise, the Debenture is invalid under section 267 as not within the statutory exception. Consequently the liquidators' rejection of the proof of debt was upheld.
2 Oct 2007

RE THE WORLD ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE THE WORLD ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW294/2007

The petitioner, being an unpaid and undisputed judgment creditor with a valid demand under s178(1)(a), established that the Company was deemed unable to pay its debts; the proposed adjournment and security would not serve a useful purpose given the petitioner's refusal to accept the proposal, therefore a winding-up order was warranted.
24 Sept 2004

RE RE GOOD SUCCESS CATERING GROUP LTD (“the Company”)

Citation

RE RE GOOD SUCCESS CATERING GROUP LTD (“the Company”)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW542/2002

Leyland Daf overruled Barleycorn; Hong Kong statutory provisions (ss.265(3B) and 265(4)) are materially the same as the UK provisions considered in Leyland Daf; therefore liquidation expenses are not payable out of funds realized under a floating charge ahead of preferential debts and the Official Receiver was entitled to refuse payment; appeal dismissed.
17 Jan 2003

AMERY CONSTRUCTION WATER PROOFING CO LTD v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

AMERY CONSTRUCTION WATER PROOFING CO LTD v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16179/2001

The defendant produced evidence suggesting potential insolvency but the court was not satisfied there was reason to believe (i.e. a likelihood rather than a mere possibility) that the plaintiff would be unable to pay the defendant's costs at the time the order would be made; the evidence was insufficiently certain and the application for security under s.357 was therefore dismissed.
31 Oct 2002

RE S. MEGGA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.

Citation

RE S. MEGGA TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5551/2001

Preferential creditors held statutory rights to priority that were different from ordinary unsecured creditors and therefore constituted a separate class; the Company should have convened a separate meeting for that class; because no properly constituted meeting and no requisite approval for that class occurred, the court had no jurisdiction under s.166(2) to sanction the scheme and must dismiss the petition.
13 Sept 2001

RE TEAM CONCEPTS MANUFACTURING LTD.

Citation

RE TEAM CONCEPTS MANUFACTURING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2741/2001

The court sanctioned the Scheme because the meeting was properly convened and chaired, statutory majorities in number and value were achieved (including 96% in value in favour), the class was fairly represented (inter‑company votes did not alter the statutory majorities), and the arrangement offered a practicable and superior commercial return to creditors compared with the negligible return likely in liquidation.
22 May 2000

ABN AMRO BANK N.V. v. CHIYU BANKING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

ABN AMRO BANK N.V. v. CHIYU BANKING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2793/1999

On construction the debenture's charging clause did not encompass fixed deposits and bank balances because including them would be commercially unworkable given the restrictive covenant; alternatively, even if covered, neither Chiyu nor Wing Hang had actual, constructive or inferable notice of the restrictive or automatic crystallisation clauses and therefore their subsequently created equitable fixed charges and exercise of set-off prevailed (including under the rule in Dearle v Hall); accordingly ABN's claim failed.