Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voidable dispositions

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

GENERAL HERO LTD v. TSANG KWONG KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1811
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5297/2024

On the pleadings the court was satisfied that the Disposition was unsupported by consideration, rendered the 1st Defendant insolvent (or was made when he was insolvent), exposed creditors to a significant risk of non‑recovery, and therefore was made with intent to defraud within s.60 CPO; the 2nd Defendant did not take for value in good faith, so the Disposition is voidable and is void as against the Plaintiff; declaratory relief was granted on default and costs awarded.
30 Jun 2025

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD (In Liquidation) v. THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW239/2018

The Court dismissed the application to try the proposed legal question as a preliminary issue because the Bank had delayed unreasonably in raising the issue, the proposed bifurcation would likely multiply and prolong proceedings and prejudice the liquidators, and existing Hong Kong Court of Appeal authorities are contrary to the Bank’s position such that resolving the preliminary question first was unlikely to be dispositive without ultimate appellate (Court of Final Appeal) resolution.
30 Jun 2025

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD (In Liquidation) v. THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW316/2018

The Court dismissed the Bank’s application to try the proposed legal question as a preliminary issue because the Bank provided no adequate explanation for the delay, caused prejudice and further delay to the liquidation process, and faced significant precedent obstacles given binding Court of Appeal decisions rejecting the Bank’s contention; accordingly case management required that the s.182 proceedings proceed without a separate preliminary trial.
12 Jun 2025

袁子俊及陳凱欣作為潘森破產產業的受託人對潘森

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2017
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7213/2019

On the balance of probabilities the trustees' complaints of non‑cooperation and obstructive conduct were established in respect of the three matters complained of; those findings justify suspending the automatic four‑year discharge. A three‑year suspension from 25 March 2025 is appropriate to allow trustees to investigate and administer the estate. The bankrupt must pay the trustees' costs assessed at HK$280,000.
15 Oct 2020

CHAN SZE WING v. CONGRUENCE CHINESE MEDICINE & JING LUO HEALTH LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA866/2012

On the balance of probabilities the Company (acting by its sole director/shareholder TPC) transferred the Property with the intention to defraud a prospective creditor; the transfer was at a gross undervalue, occurred in circumstances (timing, family relationship, inconsistent and unproved payment evidence, non-production of material witnesses and documents) from which intent to defraud may be inferred; the transferee failed to prove she provided valuable consideration in good faith and without notice; accordingly the Assignment is voidable under s.60 CPO and must be set aside; restoration ex…
5 Aug 2016

CHU TIK KWONG v. CHOW CHUNG HEI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU TIK KWONG v. CHOW CHUNG HEI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1736/2015

The affirmation was expunged for contravening Order 41 rule 5; because there is a genuine and substantial dispute of fact as to intent under section 60 CPO the matter cannot proceed by originating summons and must continue as if begun by writ; consequential directions for pleadings and costs were ordered against the plaintiff.
12 Apr 2013

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. LUCKY DRAGON LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. LUCKY DRAGON LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1237/2012

The court found the plaintiff had established a serious question to be tried under Section 60 on the material before the ex parte judge, rejected the 4th defendant's allegations of material non-disclosure and of absence of risk of dissipation, held that delay did not defeat the application given the need for confidentiality, and refused fortification because the 4th defendant failed to provide evidence of likely significant loss or a sound basis for the proposed quantum.
22 Jan 2009

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1294/2005

The court held that the plaintiff established that the matters sought in the further particulars and most interrogatories were relevant to the genuineness of the Lucky Dragon Agreement and must be answered; the 5th defendant must supply specified particulars and answer all outstanding interrogatories except interrogatory 20 within 35 days, failing which its defence will be struck out and plaintiff may enter judgment; interrogatory 20 was impermissible and refused; questions of section 60(3) are relevant but the 5th defendant must first provide particulars and answers to allow determination of…
12 Mar 2008

TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1796/2005

The court was not satisfied that the directors effected the Scheme with a dishonest intention to defraud creditors; objective evidence established a legitimate commercial purpose (to regularise beneficial ownership given Girvan's financing), the directors believed the Elimor liability had not crystallised and Holdings had or expected sufficient assets to meet the claim; accordingly an essential element of a s60 claim (intent to defraud) was not proven and the action was dismissed.
2 Feb 2007

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA CONSTRUCTION REALTY LTD v. SINO BUSINESS SERVICES PROPRIETARY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1294/2005

The 5th defendant demonstrated a meritorious defence under s.60(3) by showing that the consideration and terms were explicable by commercial risk and expenditure, there was insufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice of the Australian proceedings, and mere undervalue or absence of legal advice did not establish notice; accordingly the default judgment was set aside unconditionally.