Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Security enforcement

  • 25 Apr 2025

    KEYNE LTD v. JOVIAL PARADISE LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1684
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1565/2024

    The Company failed to demonstrate that presentation of a winding up petition would be an abuse of process because it produced no substantive defence, the alleged repayments were reasonably arguable as payments on behalf of other counterparties, and Jovial lawfully retained the right to enforce the security; accordingly the quia timet injunctions were refused and the summonses and actions dismissed with costs to the defendant.

  • 11 Apr 2025

    RE FAN SHAOZHOU

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1521
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB528/2025

    The statutory demand was not complied with, the debt arising from an undisputed judgment remained owing, the Debtor filed no opposition, and the last‑minute conditional loan proposal was uncertain and unacceptable; accordingly the Debtor is deemed unable to pay under s.6A(1)(a) and a usual bankruptcy order was warranted.

  • 8 Dec 2023

    OZ v. CIL

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 3154
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD18/2023

    Application to set aside the statutory demand dismissed because the applicant failed to advance grounds supported by affidavit showing a bona fide substantial dispute; the estoppel argument failed on its facts and the 20 May 2023 email did not preclude enforcement of the SD; the SD was not defective for omitting details of third‑party securities and the debt remained a liquidated sum; respondent authorised to present bankruptcy petition and costs awarded on indemnity basis.

  • 14 Dec 2022

    WAN TAI INVESTMENTS LTD v. LI HIU YAN

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3702
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1998/2020

    The CCR formula must be read as [(A×B)+(C×D)+E]/(F×G) because that construction accords with the commercial purpose and factual matrix and avoids an absurd result that would follow from strict application of arithmetic order; on that construction the defendant provided insufficient collateral and there was no defence, entitling the plaintiff to an order for specific performance of the Put Option Deed.

  • 8 Jul 2022

    RE PAN SUTONG

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 2076
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB6548/2021

    The court held that the HCMP, CACV and HCSD determinations are binding by way of issue estoppel and Henderson abuse; the Company and Pan are precluded from re‑litigating the bona fide dispute and jurisdiction points; the Peng evidence and transcripts do not meet the narrow Arnold/Ladd v Marshall exceptions; the Debt of HK$8 billion remains unpaid and not bona fide disputed, thus the court made the usual winding up order against Silver Starlight Limited and the usual bankruptcy order against Pan Sutong; costs to be assessed ordinarily with certificate for two counsel and nisi costs order, but…

  • 2 Sept 2021

    RE AETHER LTD

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2647
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW397/2020

    The court granted the validation order because the transfer related to fully paid shares, there was no evidence the validation would prejudice creditors, the provisional liquidators and receiver did not oppose the application, and validation would facilitate realization of the company's sole valuable asset potentially benefiting creditors and shareholders.

  • 12 Dec 2011

    RE DAYS IMPEX LTD

    Citation
    RE DAYS IMPEX LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW298/2011

    Winding-up orders were granted because statutory demands were served and the debts were due and payable notwithstanding security valuations which cannot be set off until realisation; proposed restructuring was rejected by the majority of banking creditors and did not constitute a legitimate reason to refuse winding-up orders.

  • 22 Jul 2008

    RE CENTRE RISE TRADING LTD

    Citation
    RE CENTRE RISE TRADING LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW142/2007

    The petition succeeds because the Bank demonstrated an enforceable and substantial debt supported by the Hong Kong judgment and detailed calculations; the Civil Mediation Decision did not operate to extinguish or freeze interest or preclude the Bank from enforcing the judgment; the Bank lawfully appropriated payments and only obtained legal title to part of the Set-off Properties later so the Company’s calculations are incorrect; the assigned cross-claim was not shown to be a genuine defence to the winding-up petition.

  • 10 Jul 2006

    RE FIRST CHINA TRADING LTD

    Citation
    RE FIRST CHINA TRADING LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW226/2006

    The court ordered winding up because the Company owed the petitioner judgment debts, realized security left a substantial shortfall, the Company did not oppose the petition and the appeal was withdrawn, justifying a winding up order and payment of the petitioner's costs from the Company's assets.

  • 9 Nov 2004

    FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK AND OTHERS v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "LIBERTY CONTAINER

    Citation
    FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK AND OTHERS v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "LIBERTY CONTAINER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAJ168/2003

    Clause 9.3 is not a penalty and is enforceable: the 2% uplift was a commercially reasonable, not extravagant, prospective rateable increase assessed at the time of contracting; default interest at the uplifted rate is recoverable only from the date the lenders called in the loan by written notice (16 April 2003) not from the earlier missed instalment; plaintiffs are entitled to six days post-judgment interest at the rate earned by the court on the deposited funds.