Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Receivership

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

NG CHUNG YING DAYDES v. TANG MAN KIT otherwise known as TANG MAN KIT, TERRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1439/2021

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending determination of the Membership Proceedings; the trial judge's treatment of the managers' legal status and the competing leases was adequate for interlocutory relief.
22 Jul 2025

CCMD OVERSEAS LTD v. SINOM INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 678
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV285/2024

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to establish any triable issue that the plaintiff acted for an improper purpose or in bad faith; the evidence (including the Status Report, registration of shares, marketing efforts by receivers and the plaintiff's conduct) was either explicable as legitimate attempts to secure repayment or insufficiently probative to meet the high threshold for inferring predominant or improper purpose.
15 Apr 2025

BEIJING RENJI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP CO., LTD v. ZHU MIN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1480
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA189/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the application was founded on a misconceived premise (a clerically approved draft order did not change the court's manifest oral decision), the plaintiff offered no authorities to support its position, the application had no reasonable prospect of success and there were no reasons in the interests of justice to grant leave; issues of alleged breach of natural justice are left to the Court of Appeal to determine if pursued.
8 Apr 2025

RE TRILLION GLORY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW399/2024

The petitions were dismissed because the Petitioner is a secured creditor whose security effectively encumbers all meaningful assets of Noble and Trillion (and thus R&F), leaving no free assets for unsecured creditors; the Petitioner therefore has no real interest in a winding‑up order and there is no utility in making such an order; furthermore, the allegations relied upon were unpleaded and any alleged causes of action are chargeable to the Security Agent or are the preserve of a liquidator and do not establish exceptional circumstances.
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.
21 Oct 2024

OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS (A FIRM) v. MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/2023

The court granted the plaintiff's application: it ordered the 1st defendant to produce specified financial and board/shareholder documents relating to WDI within 21 days; if the 1st defendant failed to comply, WDI was ordered to produce the documents within 21 days thereafter; costs orders were made against the plaintiff (to pay WDI costs of the application) and against the 1st defendant (to pay the plaintiff's costs).
2 Aug 2024

RICH REGION HOLDINGS LTD v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2034
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1764/2023

The documented loan agreement and purported share charge were sham instruments created as a pretext to sequester Gold Brilliant’s shares; no monies were advanced by Great Bliss, the charge was inoperative, and consequently the assignment to Seashore conveyed no legal or equitable interest in the shares; therefore declarations that the loan and charge were shams and that Seashore acquired no interest are warranted, and specified sums remain due from Gold Brilliant to Rich Region and Concept Pioneer.
2 Aug 2024

RICH REGION HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2034
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1811/2023

The loan agreement and the share charge were sham instruments, no monies were advanced by Great Bliss to Gold Brilliant, consequently the charge never conveyed any legal or equitable interest to Great Bliss and the subsequent assignment to Seashore could not transfer any interest; therefore declarations were made to that effect and Seashore’s counterclaim dismissed; specified loan amounts owed by Gold Brilliant to Rich Region and Concept Pioneer were accepted as due.
11 Jul 2024

FOREVER CONCORD LTD v. LAU KWONG & HUNG (A Firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1838
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP620/2024

Leave to discontinue/withdraw was granted; the discontinuance was not simply an admission of defeat but partly justified by new information and the appropriateness of resolving related matters in the writ action. However the plaintiff was not blameless in commencing prematurely. As a result the court ordered that 50% of the costs of the two filed affirmations be in the cause of HCA 845/2024 as between the plaintiff and the 1st and 3rd defendants, and made no order as to the remainder of the costs of the discontinued/withdrawn items (including specified apportionments). A costs nisi of no orde…
30 Apr 2024

CHENG KA YAN AND OTHERS v. GRAND XI INVESTMENTS PTE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1607/2022

On the available evidence the plaintiffs' core allegations of oral collateral representations and an implied term were inherently implausible, contradicted by contemporaneous documents and untenable; plaintiffs' claims were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and were struck out, and defendants were entitled to enforcement and summary judgment on their counterclaim.