Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Security for debt

Legal area

Court

8 Mar 2024

NG KIN SIU v. GENTLE SOAR LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 589
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD26/2021

The sum of HK$52,000,000 was paid into court as security for the debt pending appeal; the parties must be taken to have intended the interest to follow the principal if the creditor succeeded; the appeal was dismissed and justice requires the creditor be compensated for delay by payment of interest accrued and accruing while the sum was in court, therefore the court exercises its discretion to order payment of that interest to the creditor.
5 Oct 2022

RE NAM HO KWAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6470/2021

Adjournment refused because the proposed sale and payment were speculative and unsupported by credible evidence of timely repayment (preliminary purchase terms, regulatory and PRC FX uncertainties, encumbrance and liquidator consent issues, and Petitioner’s refusal to consent); therefore with the debt undisputed a bankruptcy order was made.
15 Aug 2022

HUA SHE ASSET MANAGEMENT (SHANGHAI) CO LTD v. BEIJING YAOLAI INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2549
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT16/2021

The Award is manifestly valid on a brief consideration because it was upheld by the Shanghai supervisory court and the UK Court on substantially similar grounds; coupled with demonstrated risk of asset dissipation and substantial delay, it is just to impose security as a condition for further prosecution of the Set Aside Application; accordingly Kei must provide security of HK$1,000,000 for costs and RMB100,000,000 for the Award Debt within 21 days, with costs to be summarily assessed on the specified timetable.
3 Aug 2021

RE NEWAY MUSIC LTD (Company Number 1218812)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2260
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW171/2021

The statutory demands were validly served and the Company failed to comply or offer to secure the debt arising from an unsuspended Copyright Tribunal order; consequently the Company is deemed insolvent under s178(1)(a) and failed to show a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds, entitling the petitioner to a winding up order.
18 Sept 2020

SYNERGY LIGHTING LTD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2490
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1447/2020

There was no prima facie case that a winding-up petition by the Bank would be an abuse of process because the Bank was an undisputed creditor, the assignment of future receivables did not make the debt adequately marketable or reasonably satisfactory security, and section 178(1)(a) is not the sole basis for a petition; accordingly the ex parte injunction was discharged and the summons dismissed.
25 Nov 2010

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE BANK & TRUST HONG KONG BRANCH v. MIKE PANJWANI

Citation

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE BANK & TRUST HONG KONG BRANCH v. MIKE PANJWANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA725/2009

On true construction the Facility Letter (clause B5) gives the bank an independent contractual right to sell Secured Assets upon breach of the Security Ratio without notice or consent; clauses B4/B5 (Security Ratio and sale) and General Terms 8.7/8.8 (margin Call/Close-out) operate in different spheres; terms requiring reasonable notice to comply with margin calls or that notifications must always be effective were inconsistent with express terms and the commercial matrix and thus not implied; the Defendant's factual account was not credible and he had no real or bona fide defence, so summary…
16 Oct 2008

RE TO KIN WAH

Citation

RE TO KIN WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB9856/2007

The court held that the Debtor's unquantified but substantial cross-claim did not bar a bankruptcy order because the Petitioners had available reverse cross-claims (taxed costs and petition debt) that overtopped the Debtor's cross-claim; the proposed pledges of Tso shares/entitlements were not shown to be assignable or effectively available; and the proposed land security lacked evidence of ownership and value, so none of the Debtor's grounds sufficed to resist the bankruptcy order.
19 Apr 2004

SEAFUL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WONG HUNG PING t/a WING HUNG KNITWEAR GARMENT FACTORY

Citation

SEAFUL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WONG HUNG PING t/a WING HUNG KNITWEAR GARMENT FACTORY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ350/2004

Defendant failed to establish any arguable defence: the cheques were supported by consideration either because they were issued pursuant to the instalment agreement (as admitted by defendant's counsel) or because they constituted security and/or partial payment of an antecedent debt, and section 27 deems antecedent debt valuable consideration; accordingly summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.
17 Apr 2003

RE HO KANG POR ALEX

Citation

RE HO KANG POR ALEX
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB21031/2002

The court found a final District Court judgment for a liquidated sum, the statutory demand was properly served and not complied with so the debtor appeared unable to pay; the assets alleged by the debtor were company property not security for the judgment, the debtor's offers were unreliable and made in bad faith or for delay, and therefore the s.6 requirements were satisfied and the petition could not be dismissed under s.6D(3); a bankruptcy order was made.
7 Dec 2001

RE LAI KAM WING

Citation

RE LAI KAM WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2701/2001

The court held there was no bona fide substantial dispute because the High Court order must be construed to require the defendant to execute and deliver documents effective to register change of ownership with the Marine Department (including valid licence and certificate of survey); the defendant had not done so and therefore paragraph 3 of the Order (payment of HK$1,200,000 and interest) became payable, justifying entry of a bankruptcy order.