Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Security valuation

  • 29 Nov 2024

    RE MA TING HOI ALBERT

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3460
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB1146/2024

    The court held that a difference between the amount in the statutory demand and the amended petition did not strip the court of jurisdiction; the SD could be relied upon to establish apparent inability to pay and the court would exercise its discretion to waive the introductory defect because no prejudice to the debtor was shown. The petitioner’s valuations at demand and petition dates were genuine; the debtor failed to adduce admissible, reliable evidence proving on the balance of probabilities that the security equalled or exceeded the petition debt. The court excluded the late RKF expert r…

  • 24 Apr 2024

    RE SINO OIL AND GAS HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1135
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP252/2023

    The court refused to sanction the scheme because creditors were not provided with sufficient, clear and fair information about the integrated Restructuring and its material, unusual features (including the bifurcation and undervaluation of CS's security, the post-implementation indebtedness to investors, and unlimited exclusion/indemnity protections), the explanatory statement omitted required disclosures of directors' interests in breach of s.671(3)(b), and the deficiencies were such that the court could not be satisfied an intelligent and honest creditor could reasonably approve the Scheme.

  • 24 Mar 2021

    LAW v. CHANG

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 789
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD48/2020

    The statutory demand was set aside because the only undisputed element of the claimed debt (costs of $6,100) was below the statutory bankruptcy threshold of $10,000 so there was no basis for a bankruptcy petition; accordingly the demand could not fulfill its statutory purpose and must be set aside under the court's powers in r48(5)(d) and related authorities.

  • 15 Jun 2018

    RE WONG KUN SHING

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 1368
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB632/2018

    A bankruptcy order was made because the petitioner established the judgment debt and statutory demand, the debtor offered no evidential dispute or defence, and the petitioner complied with s6B(1)(b) by estimating the security's value (HK$9,999) and clarifying the petition did not concern the secured portion, such estimate being reasonable given lack of up-to-date accounts.

  • 23 Jul 2003

    RE KEEN LLOYD RESOURCES LTD

    Citation
    RE KEEN LLOYD RESOURCES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW1134/2002

    The company failed to discharge the onus of proving genuine and substantial cross-claims exceeding the petitioning debt and the petitioner's reverse cross-claim; the asserted cross-claims were not believable or sufficiently quantified, the petition was not shown to be improperly motivated where the debt was undisputed, the company is insolvent on the evidence, and accordingly a winding-up order was made with costs to be paid out of the company's assets.

  • 13 Apr 2000

    WONG FUNG FLORENCE v. THE HONGKONG CHINESE BANK, LTD.

    Citation
    WONG FUNG FLORENCE v. THE HONGKONG CHINESE BANK, LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD18/1999

    No enforceable agreement existed to delay enforcement; the deed was freely negotiated and not procured by economic duress; the overstatement in the demand was not sufficiently misleading given admitted principal sums; the creditor's valuation as at the date of the demand on a forced sale basis was reasonable and, critically, the property was company property (third party security) and could not be set off against guarantors' liability — therefore statutory demands were valid and must stand.

  • 9 Jun 1999

    WONG SHUN v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LTD.

    Citation
    WONG SHUN v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD7/1999

    Loans 2 and 3 were illegal and unenforceable under s.22(1) of the Money Lenders Ordinance at the time the statutory demand was served, so there was no indebtedness under those loans for the purposes of the statutory demand; loan 1 was covered by the creditor's security such that on the creditor's own valuation no balance remained; the court declined to exercise its discretion under s.22(2) at this interlocutory forum and stage because that requires fuller evidence and consideration; consequently the statutory demand was set aside with costs.