Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Jurisdiction over foreign company

  • 8 Aug 2025

    RE RENCO HOLDING GROUP LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3562
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW235/2025

    Because a substantial debt in excess of HK$680 million was due and unpaid and the company failed to pay, and because the alleged oral collateral agreement was unsupported and contradicted by the written Loan Agreement, the statutory demand and petition were sufficient, third‑party security did not defeat the petition, and the jurisdictional threshold for winding up a foreign company was met, the court made a winding up order against the company.

  • 21 Dec 2020

    RE CHINA GREENFRESH GROUP CO LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 36
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW187/2020

    With an earlier petition (HCCW 83/2020) pending, the later petition is procedurally improper; the court will adjourn the later petition until the first petition is determined and reserve costs, reflecting the established principle that only the first petition should normally proceed and subsequent petitions should be stayed or removed.

  • 21 May 2018

    RE CHEUNG CHI MANG

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 984
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB1361/2017

    The Court found no genuine dispute on substantial grounds nor a crossclaim against the Petitioner capable of extinguishing the debt; the December facility’s purpose was to repay the Debtor and not margin financing under the SFO so illegality did not arise; the HT Group shares in the margin account were subject to HT Securities' prior rights and insufficient to satisfy HT Securities’ own indebtedness; the Company had sufficient Hong Kong connection and the core requirements for winding up a foreign company were met; accordingly the winding up order and bankruptcy order were granted and costs o…

  • 21 May 2018

    RE HONG KONG INVESTMENTS GROUP LTD

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 984
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW63/2017

    The Court concluded the Company failed to show a genuine dispute on substantial grounds or a crossclaim with mutuality; the December Facility Agreement's purpose was to repay existing indebtedness not to provide securities margin financing so illegality under the SFO did not arise; HT Securities had priority over the margin account assets which were insufficient to satisfy HT Securities and thus unavailable to the Petitioner; the Company had sufficient connection with Hong Kong and the Court properly exercised its discretion to wind up the Company and make a bankruptcy order against the Debto…

  • 24 Jan 2018

    RE MERDEKA FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP LTD

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 163
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW343/2017

    Leave to amend was granted because the petition, once amended to cite s327(4)(a) Cap 32 and to plead the three core jurisdictional requirements, put the petition in order; the strike-out summons was justified by the original erroneous statutory citation but costs for the summons were limited to the period before the petitioner issued the amendment summons (up to 9 January 2018); a validation order was granted on terms but the court refused the onerous request for ongoing provision of monthly bank statements and instead ordered provision of quarterly and annual reports from the period ending 3…

  • 1 Feb 2017

    TAM WING YUEN AND OTHERS v. SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TAM WING YUEN AND OTHERS v. SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW392/2015

    The amended petition was struck out because the petitioner failed to establish the jurisdictional criteria to wind up a foreign company in Hong Kong, alternative remedies were available and petitioner acted unreasonably and vexatiously by repeatedly litigating the same complaints; the petition disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the non-company respondents were improperly joined, justifying strike out and indemnity costs.

  • 27 Jun 2014

    RE MAX SUNNY LTD

    Citation
    RE MAX SUNNY LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW84/2014

    ANZ established a good prima facie case for winding up by proof of unpaid statutory demands and insolvency and demonstrated that overall it was just and convenient to appoint provisional liquidators because the companies' assets and receivables were at serious risk, management was inactive and unable to protect creditors' interests, and Z‑Obee had sufficient connection with Hong Kong to permit jurisdiction under s327; accordingly provisional liquidators were appointed.

  • 27 Jun 2014

    RE Z-OBEE HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    RE Z-OBEE HOLDINGS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW85/2014

    The court found the companies were deemed insolvent for non-compliance with statutory demands, Z-Obee had sufficient connection with Hong Kong under s327, and there was a real risk to assets and mismanagement; accordingly it was just and convenient to appoint provisional liquidators to preserve assets and pursue recovery for creditors, so the draft order (as amended) was made.