Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory demand service

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2022

RE DAI YUMIN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 950
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7582/2020

The statutory demand was validly served at the address stipulated in the settlement agreement and brought to the debtor's attention; arbitration clauses did not plainly or expressly cover independent rights to sue on the dishonoured cheques and therefore do not bar court proceedings; the debtor failed to adduce credible, substantial evidence of triable disputes (no reliable proof of a 2017 settlement, duress was unsubstantiated and was ratified by conduct, failure of consideration and mitigation claims fell away), accordingly there were no bona fide disputes preventing the grant of a bankrupt…
11 Mar 2020

RE FRANK DOMINICK

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1301/2019

The Company failed to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds to the winding up petition; accordingly the court made a winding up order. The bankruptcy petition could not be finally determined on affirmation evidence because of a substantial dispute over whether the statutory demand was properly personally served on Mr Dominick, and therefore a case management hearing (with cross‑examination if necessary) was ordered to determine how the bankruptcy petition should proceed; costs of the bankruptcy petition were reserved.
11 Mar 2020

SAFE CASTLE LTD v. CHINA SILVER ASSET MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW69/2019

The Company failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds because material conditions precedent (notably reimbursement of costs under clause 2(6) and documentary evidence of registration/notification) were not established and acceptance of partial payments did not amount to an unequivocal waiver; the security held was manifestly insufficient to discharge the debt; accordingly a winding up order was made. On the bankruptcy petition the court found a material conflict of evidence about personal service of the statutory demand that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence a…
23 Jun 2006

RE VONG WUN MAN

Citation

RE VONG WUN MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB11934/2004

The statutory demand was invalidly served because the petitioner failed to take reasonable steps to bring it to the bankrupt’s attention given his known Macau connection (including failure to advertise in Macau); because the petition was founded on that defective statutory demand the bankruptcy order was annulled and the petition dismissed.
16 Nov 2004

RE WOO CHIU LIN

Citation

RE WOO CHIU LIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB12249/2002

Although the petitioner had taken reasonable steps to serve the statutory demand, the ex parte grounding affidavit for substituted service of the petition was misleading by omission (failing to disclose that the debtor was represented by solicitors), rendering the substituted service irregular; that irregularity required the bankruptcy order to be set aside/annulled.
6 May 2002

RE ALROCO CO. LTD.

Citation

RE ALROCO CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1386/2001

The court was satisfied the statutory demand was properly served; the agent defence failed because the Company contracted in its own name and produced no evidence creating a bona fide substantive dispute; the allegation that the cheques were conditional lacked particulars and evidence; the alleged tortious set-off was insufficient and could be pursued by liquidators; accordingly the Company was deemed unable to pay its debts under s.178(1)(a) and an order to wind up Alroco Company Limited was made.
27 Nov 2000

Re Wellead Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd.

Citation

Re Wellead Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW730/2000

The court found the statutory demand validly served at the registered office shown on the Companies Registry and the second service of the petition valid; the company was insolvent with an outstanding judgment debt and speculative prospects of recovery from pending arbitration did not provide sufficient assurance of payment or enforcement in time; therefore the court refused further adjournment and granted the winding-up order with costs.
24 Dec 1998

INTERNATIONAL BANK OF ASIA LTD., A CREDITOR, EX PARTE

Citation

INTERNATIONAL BANK OF ASIA LTD., A CREDITOR, EX PARTE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB865/1998

Service of the statutory demands and petitions was irregular and fell materially short of the requirements of Bankruptcy Rules 46, 49 and 59; the court's discretion under Rule 49(9) was engaged and, in the circumstances, the petitions should not have been filed and must be set aside; Rule 203 did not justify curing or waiving the defective service; costs to be borne by the Petitioner.