Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Secured creditor

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2025

RE CHAN SZE MING MICHAEL

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1385/2025

The statutory demand was validly served by a combination of personal delivery at the 21 January meeting, transmission to the Specified Email which the debtor had agreed could be used, and delivery to the debtor's office; the petitioner is not a secured creditor of the debtor because the guarantees are personal; the debtor failed to specify and prove any bona fide, substantial dispute or credible contemporaneous evidence of enforceability, collateral contracts or estoppel; non‑compliance with procedural formality in the notice or service did not cause substantial injustice that could not be re…
21 Jul 2021

CP GLOBAL INC. (receivers and managers appointed) AND ANOTHER v. GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2135
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1647/2020

There was no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the debt; the exclusive jurisdiction clause does not, by itself, prevent the presentation or determination of a Hong Kong bankruptcy petition; the petition met s6B requirements as the petitioner gave an estimated value of the security; the Money Lenders Ordinance does not render the Credit Agreement unenforceable because the loan is an exempt secured loan; allegations of estoppel/waiver and the counterclaim were unsubstantiated and insufficient to defeat the petition; accordingly the court made the usual bankruptcy order against Guy…
24 Jan 2019

RE TAM SHUK YI FANNY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7402/2017

Third‑party security (legal charge and security deeds) does not render the petitioner a secured creditor under section 2 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance and therefore does not constitute a defence to the statutory demands; no valid defence was established and bankruptcy orders were properly made.
24 Jan 2019

RE CHEUNG SUNG KEI CIVIC

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7403/2017

Because the securities and legal charge were provided by third parties and not the debtors, the petitioner was not a 'secured creditor' of the debtors under Bankruptcy Ordinance s2; third-party security is irrelevant to the validity of the statutory demands and the debtors raised no valid defence, so bankruptcy orders were properly made.
30 Aug 2012

RE LEE PIT TAT

Citation

RE LEE PIT TAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB954/1985

The court found the omission was not inadvertent because the 2004 correspondence from BOC/KBC unambiguously stated it would not enforce the charging order, demonstrating an intention to surrender the security; accordingly the application to amend the proof of debt was dismissed.
8 Apr 2005

RE THE PRECAST PILING AND ENGINEERING CO LTD (in liquidation)

Citation

RE THE PRECAST PILING AND ENGINEERING CO LTD (in liquidation)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1156/2002

The omission to state the security in Mau Shing's proof of debt arose from inadvertence caused by erroneous legal advice from its former solicitors; accordingly the court allowed amendment under rule 84 on terms that Mau Shing indemnify the liquidators for costs occasioned by the omission and granted leave under section 186 to proceed in the High Court Action to apply for release of the HK$700,000 paid into court; costs of the present application were ordered to be paid by Mau Shing to the liquidators on the standard basis.
15 Mar 2001

LAI YUK SHAU v. DAO HENG BANK LTD.

Citation

LAI YUK SHAU v. DAO HENG BANK LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD39/2000

Mortgages provided by third parties do not constitute 'security in respect of the debt' under r.44(5) when read with the definition of 'secured creditor' in s.2 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; the statutory demand complied with r.44(4) since the interest calculated to 4 October 2000 was due at the date of the demand and the form may be varied; the court declined to exercise its discretion under r.48(5)(d) because the bank was entitled to enforce the debtor's guarantee and other securities without first resorting to those securities and no injustice to the debtor was shown; accordingly the applic…

Hong Kong Case Law

RE CHAN SZE MING MICHAEL

CP GLOBAL INC. (receivers and managers appointed) AND ANOTHER v. GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM AND ANOTHER

RE TAM SHUK YI FANNY

RE CHEUNG SUNG KEI CIVIC

RE LEE PIT TAT

RE THE PRECAST PILING AND ENGINEERING CO LTD (in liquidation)

LAI YUK SHAU v. DAO HENG BANK LTD.