Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Winding-up

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

RE WANG WEITAO

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2813
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8432/2025

The filing of the Company’s notice of appeal after the earlier hearing did not amount to a material change in circumstances; the Company’s appeal (limited to para 3 of the NOA) is without merit on the evidence and the prior findings in the WU Judgment, so there are no very good reasons to stay the Bankruptcy Petition; accordingly the Stay Summons is dismissed and the usual bankruptcy order is made against the Debtor with costs payable out of the Debtor’s estate.
17 Mar 2026

WONG CHUI BING v. BLOOMYEARS LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW160/2025

The Company failed to raise a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: its alleged consultancy agreement was implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous documentary evidence, vague in particulars, and inconsistent with its earlier pleadings; the Petitioner proved the payment and the cheque dishonour and the Company did not comply with the statutory demand, thus the Company is deemed unable to pay under s178(1)(a) Cap 32 and a winding-up order is warranted.
21 Jan 2026

RE ELION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW648/2025

The Company failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: the Settlement Deed constituted a clear admission of indebtedness and contractual estoppel barred denial; the illegality and collateral contract allegations were unsupported, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and conduct, and did not bind the Petitioner; accordingly the Company was deemed insolvent after failing to comply with the statutory demand and the petition succeeded, warranting a winding up order.
5 Sept 2025

RE BGA HOLDINGS LTD (Formerly Known as BEIBU GULF OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 815
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV591/2021

Leave to appeal was refused. The Court of Appeal held that appellate restraint applies even where first instance findings were based on affidavit evidence; the appeal court's role is review not rehearing and the Company failed to show the judge was wrong. The question whether a shareholder loan is repayable on demand is fact specific; on the facts the PBM Loan was repayable on demand and the judge's findings were not shown to be wrong.
31 Jul 2025

RE SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW3/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the Petitioner's inadvertent misstatement was an obvious and innocent error irrelevant to the Master’s decision, the allegation of inflated time costs lacked merit, and the Master’s summary reduction of the claimed costs fell within the wide discretionary range; therefore there was no legal error or unreasonableness warranting interference with the summary assessment.
8 Jul 2025

RE CHINA PROPERTIES GROUP LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 636
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the Company advanced new grounds not previously canvassed, reversing a prior concession that rendered the questions academic and amounting to an abuse of process; the Court declined to address fresh issues not argued before it and followed the practice of deferring 'otherwise' grounds to the Court of Final Appeal; accordingly the Notice of Motion was dismissed and costs awarded to the Petitioner.
22 Apr 2025

RE CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD (formerly known as XINYANG MAOJIAN GROUP LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 360
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV451/2024

The court held that leave under s186(1) should be granted to Lyu, Gu and Chen to proceed with summary assessment of the appeal costs despite the winding-up order, but subject to terms proposed by the Official Receiver restricting enforcement of any costs awards against the company without leave and precluding personal costs orders against the Official Receiver or liquidators; the court then summarily assessed and awarded specific gross sums and ordered the amounts paid into court as security for costs to be paid out in partial satisfaction of those awards.
9 Apr 2025

RE BGA HOLDINGS LTD (Formerly Known as BEIBU GULF OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 322
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV557/2021

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals because the primary judge did not err in finding no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: contemporaneous documents (notably audited financial statements recording the PBM loan as current and repayable on demand), the absence of credible documentary corroboration for the alleged express/oral treatment, the implausibility of the alleged unanimous‑consent arrangement or implied term, and the lack of any binding vessel sale or effective novation meant the loan remained payable and the judge’s factual evaluation was not palpably wrong; appellate inter…
9 Apr 2025

RE BGA HOLDINGS LTD (Formerly Known as BEIBU GULF OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 322
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV591/2021

The Company failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because contemporaneous documentation (audited financial statements and board papers), objective post-meeting conduct and the novation recital overwhelmingly supported that the PBM Loan was repayable on demand and that the alleged express/oral agreement, implied term, vessel purchase agreement and novation were not credible or legally effective; the Court of Appeal will not overturn the primary judge's factual assessments absent palpable error.
24 Feb 2025

RE HNA GROUP (INTERNATIONAL) COMPANY LTD (formerly known as HNA GROUP (HONG KONG) HOLDING CO LTD and HNA GROUP INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTER (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 811
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW250/2024

The court made a winding-up order because the Company was deemed insolvent for failing to comply with the statutory demand and filed no evidence to establish a bona fide dispute or means to pay; the court retained jurisdiction to grant the order despite an earlier petition where the petitioner was unaware of that earlier petition and where immediate winding-up better served the interests of creditors and the operation of avoidance provisions.