Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set aside

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2025

何漢標對李妙桂

Citation

[2025] HKCA 754
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV340/2023

The appeal was dismissed because the statutory demand pursued judgment debts established and repeatedly upheld in prior proceedings and appeals exhausted; the appellant failed to meet the high threshold to set aside the demand or to admit new evidence (the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the set‑aside issue and did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test); the demand complied with r44; allegations of fraud/collusion/bias were unsupported and insufficient to justify re‑opening the judgments or recusal.
4 Jun 2025

NCM v. FLICBL

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2476
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD55/2024

The Applicant raised a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds—supported by contemporaneous evidence—that the Respondent unlawfully revoked production credit arising from the Disputed Policies and that the Applicant met the Contract-to-date PC Requirement; because these are genuine factual issues appropriate for trial and not for bankruptcy proceedings, the statutory demand could not stand and must be set aside, with costs to the Applicant.
20 May 2025

HO SAI CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. HONEST GATE COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 832
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5283/2023

The summons to set aside the default judgment is dismissed because the default judgment was regular, the defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success (no expert or positive evidence rebutting plaintiffs' expert), the Joint Office letters were inconclusive, the defendant's conduct and delay were unsatisfactory, and the injunction scope was not shown to be unduly wide.
12 Mar 2025

LEE ON WAI v. ATHORA LUX INVEST S.C.SP. - LOAN ORIGINATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1036
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD7/2024

Applicant failed to adduce credible evidence of a substantial dispute on liability or of a common mistake; the SDs sufficiently identified the basis of the debt and were validly served through the Agent; contractual clauses allocate risk to guarantors and waive defenses; residual discretion did not require intervention; late affidavit was inadmissible and would not have changed the outcome; application dismissed and creditors authorized to present bankruptcy petitions.
23 Jan 2025

THE HONG KONG SETTLERS HOUSING CORPORATION LTD v. WONG SEK TIM

Citation

[2025] HKDC 142
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5579/2023

Service of the writ was regular but the defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success on the defence grounded in the judicial review (leave granted at first instance), and there was no real prejudice to plaintiff; the settlement agreement did not bar the plaintiff because the defendant failed to deliver vacant possession and there was no nondisclosure by the plaintiff, therefore the court exercised its residual discretion to set aside the default judgment.
13 Jan 2025

CHAN v. INSTANT FINANCE LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 301
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD27/2024

The statutory demand was set aside because the applicant discharged the burden by adducing sufficiently precise and believable evidence demonstrating substantial disputes on the debt: credible allegations of non-receipt of loan funds and deductions, credible evidence of improper/ misleading registration of the loan instrument against the Property indicating potential collusion or sharp practice, and an arguable case that the underlying WW loan was illegal and that the IFL loan was extortionate or tainted under the Money Lenders Ordinance, such that the creditor could not properly pursue bankr…
5 Sept 2024

GG v. LL Ltd

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD21/2024

The statutory demand was set aside because the applicant demonstrated a substantial defence that the lender was not a licensed money lender and the loan did not fall within the Schedule 1 Part 2 para 2(a) exemption, rendering the loan unrecoverable under s.23 MLO; this defence was sufficient at the SD stage to require the SD to be set aside notwithstanding availability of third-party security.
20 Dec 2023

高景波對王欽賢

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 92
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD48/2023

The application is dismissed because the applicant failed to adduce precise and credible affidavit evidence showing substantive grounds to dispute the judgment debt; the attachments were incoherent and the oral allegations were unsworn and insufficient to warrant setting aside the statutory demand.
3 Aug 2023

NG KIN SIU v. GENTLE SOAR LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 944
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2022

The promissory note together with payment records established a debt of HK$52,000,000 payable by the applicant on demand; the applicant failed to adduce sufficiently precise, believable evidence to show a substantial defence or to undermine the document and payment evidence, and the trial judge's credibility and evidential assessments were not plainly wrong; the appeal is dismissed.
10 Mar 2023

鄧錦祥對 SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 276
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV62/2022

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal to set aside the statutory demand because the applicant failed to produce clear and credible evidence to impugn the underlying costs judgment (no fraud, collusion or denial of fair trial), the leave to appeal had been refused (so no stay), the fresh documents were inadmissible under Ladd v Marshall, and the appeal constituted an abuse of process warranting indemnity costs; accordingly the statutory demand stands and the appellant must pay the respondent's costs.