Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Voidable transaction

  • 20 Dec 2023

    CHINA HEALTH GROUP LTD v. LI ZHONG YUAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 3290
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2549/2017

    The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities, with the requisite cogency, that a Backdoor Arrangement existed or that the Loan Note was issued to benefit Dr Li in breach of fiduciary duties; the defendants' explanations were credible and the plaintiff's key witness evidence was undermined by late changes and lack of corroboration. Separately, Capital Foresight's claim for an order to issue a US$4,000,000 promissory note failed because no maturity date had been agreed or pleaded and the court would not imply such a term without proper pleading and evidence. Accordingly both ac…

  • 27 Jul 2015

    DONALD EDWARD OSBORN AND ANOTHER v. KOO YAT TING

    Citation
    DONALD EDWARD OSBORN AND ANOTHER v. KOO YAT TING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1434/2014

    Application dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove the transaction took place at a relevant time: the defendant was not an associate of the bankrupt so the s51(2) presumption of insolvency did not apply, and plaintiffs produced no valuation evidence to establish the transaction was at an undervalue while evidence showed the defendant incurred liability under the loan and thus provided consideration.

  • 18 Mar 2009

    SONIA YAU AND ANOTHER v. LAU MING YIN

    Citation
    SONIA YAU AND ANOTHER v. LAU MING YIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP258/2009

    Service by registered post was properly effected and Company Registry and postal evidence established respondent was resident at the service address at the relevant time; respondent produced no credible evidence he was absent or did not receive the documents, his asserted defence lacked credibility and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, and there was substantial unexplained delay — therefore extension of time to appeal was refused.

  • 31 Jan 2008

    RE SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD

    Citation
    RE SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW755/2005

    The mortgage was an unfair preference and void because it was granted within six months of the winding up petition when the Company was insolvent, and the circumstances (bank correspondence showing consistent demands but limited tactical threats, the markedly more aggressive steps by other creditors, the absence of any meaningful commercial benefit to the Company from the loan which merely repaid existing overdrafts and overdue trust receipts, and the offering of security despite personal bankruptcy risks to directors) established that the Company was influenced by a desire to improve the Ban…

  • 7 Dec 2007

    SONIA YAU AND ANOTHER v. LAU MING YIN

    Citation
    SONIA YAU AND ANOTHER v. LAU MING YIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW16/2002

    The deed of assignment was an unfair preference made within six months of winding up while the company was insolvent; KKE was a creditor and an associate, the statutory presumption of desire operated and was not rebutted, therefore the deed is void and the respondent must repay HK$7,262,042.69 to the liquidators and pay costs.