Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Place of residence

  • 26 Mar 2026

    RE CHAN CHI SAT

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1766
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB533/2025

    On the totality of the evidence the Debtor was not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, did not have a place of residence in Hong Kong, had not carried on business in Hong Kong during the relevant three year period and, having abandoned his domicile of choice, had reverted to his domicile of origin; accordingly the conditions in section 4(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance were not satisfied and the court lacked jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order, so the amended petition is dismissed; separately, the court held that service of the statutory demand by advertisement on 16 July 2024 was a reasonab…

  • 24 Jan 2025

    RE ZHU GUOLING

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 458
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB462/2024

    The petition must be dismissed because the Petitioner failed to prove jurisdiction under s4 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (no settled place of residence, no change of domicile to Hong Kong, and no carrying on of business in the Debtor's personal capacity) and, on the merits, there is a bona fide dispute because the Guarantee, strictly construed, did not cover the indebtedness under the FAAA/Exchange Offer and any transfer/variation arguably discharged the guarantor.

  • 27 Dec 2024

    RE LIN YIFAN

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3666
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB721/2024

    The court found jurisdiction under s4(1)(c)(i) and (place of residence) because the debtor acquired permanent residency, purchased and maintained a Hong Kong residential unit which he intended to occupy and did occupy during the relevant period; the debtor failed to prove a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as the alleged global settlement was unparticularized, unsupported by documents or credible evidence and inconsistent with contemporaneous records, therefore the petitioning debt stood and a bankruptcy order was made.

  • 4 Mar 2024

    RE PANG YUFENG

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 663
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB4767/2022

    Personal service of the statutory demand on 25 September 2021 was established by the process server's affirmations, contemporaneous photographs and GPS tag; service of the petition was effective by postage to the Wanchai address and by service on the Debtor's solicitors; the Debtor had a place of residence and was ordinarily resident in Hong Kong within the relevant three‑year period and failed to prove a change of domicile to the US; therefore the court had jurisdiction and a bankruptcy order was made against the Debtor.

  • 11 Oct 2019

    RE LI SHU CHUNG

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2500
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB5475/2018

    The court found on the evidence that the debtor had a place of residence and was ordinarily resident and domiciled in Hong Kong within the relevant 3 year period; the debtor had evaded service but had actual notice of the statutory demand and petition; there was no material non‑disclosure to the Master when leave was granted; and the proposed settlement (a charge on a 34% family company shareholding) was not a reasonable, readily realizable offer given the litigation history and the debtor's conduct—accordingly the jurisdiction and service defences and set‑aside and settlement defences failed…

  • 22 Feb 2019

    RE CAI SUI RONG

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 514
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB2859/2018

    Crossexamination was ordered limited to domicile and place of residence because those are jurisdictional facts turning on the respondent's subjective intention and explanations for objective indicators recorded in evidence; the bank is entitled to test those assertions in person. Crossexamination was refused on the timing of the respondent's knowledge of the statutory demand because rule 46 of the Bankruptcy Rules focuses on whether the creditor took all reasonable steps to bring the demand to the debtor's attention, not on when the debtor actually became aware of it, and the bank did not sho…

  • 4 Feb 2019

    RE CAI SUI XIN

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 330
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB735/2018

    On the evidence the court found jurisdiction under s.4 because Cai remained domiciled in Hong Kong and was ordinarily resident and had a place of residence (Broadwood Road) in Hong Kong during the Relevant Period until at least September 2016—based on immigration records, company filings, children's residence and directorships—and the onus to prove change of domicile to Tianjin was not discharged; there was insufficient evidence he personally carried on a business in Hong Kong; preliminary pleading objection dismissed; accordingly bankruptcy order made against Cai.

  • 16 May 2017

    RE 張承勷

    Citation
    RE 張承勷
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB6679/2015

    The court excluded the Draft 5th Affirmation as inadmissible (undated, un‑affirmed, un‑notarised), found the debtor failed to discharge the burden of proving change of domicile or that he was not ordinarily resident, had no place of residence or had ceased carrying on business in Hong Kong within the relevant three‑year period, concluded the statutory requirements of sections 4(1) and 6D(1) were satisfied and granted the bankruptcy order against the debtor with costs to the petitioner to be taxed and paid out of the bankrupt's assets.

  • 26 Feb 2014

    RE LIU YI FANG

    Citation
    RE LIU YI FANG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB5613/2013

    The court held that bankruptcy jurisdiction existed because the debtor maintained a place of residence in Hong Kong (24D and other addresses supported by company records and use of SHK address); the creditor had taken all reasonable steps to bring the statutory demand to the debtor's attention (personal attempts, letters to solicitors, investigators and newspaper advertisement) and substituted service was justified because the debtor evaded service; allegations of material non‑disclosure failed; and adjournment pending appeal was refused because no stay of execution was sought.

  • 3 Oct 2013

    RE GOH MING WOEI

    Citation
    RE GOH MING WOEI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB1400/2013

    On the facts the court found overwhelming objective evidence (debtor's own affirmations, use of Hong Kong address in proceedings, family residing at the Sai Kung premises, employment permit and service contacts) that the debtor was ordinarily resident in Hong Kong during the relevant three year period, had a place of residence in Hong Kong, and there was no evidence he was absent on the petition date; accordingly the jurisdictional challenge failed and a bankruptcy order was made, with costs ordered nisi on an indemnity basis due to abuse of process.