Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Winding-up petitions

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

AMP RESOURCES LTD v. INDAGRO SA

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1487/2025

The Court concluded there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement under PRC law because the applicability of Civil Code Article 490 to the parties' email and draft contract exchanges raises a legitimate issue for the Beijing Court; there was no material non‑disclosure in the ex parte application; substituted service was justified and the Defendant's summons to set it aside is dismissed; accordingly the continuation of the ex parte injunction is warranted and costs are awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
8 Apr 2025

RE R&F PROPERTIES (HK) COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW483/2024

The petitions were dismissed because the petitioner is a secured creditor whose security covers substantially all assets of the companies so it has no real interest in a winding up; there are no free assets for unsecured creditors; the alleged causes of action were unpleaded and in any event are assets subject to the secured creditors' floating charge; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the petitions and ordered costs against the petitioner.
9 Aug 2024

RE CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2089
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW50/2023

The court found that on the evidence the Loan Agreements were negotiated and completed at the stated Hong Kong address (Winning House) and s.18(2)(j) was not breached; the Companies failed to show a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds; accordingly the petitions could not be defeated on that basis, but rather than making winding-up orders the court adjourned the petitions to permit the Companies an opportunity to pay the petitioning debts.
9 Aug 2024

RE CHINA STEM CELLS (SOUTH) COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2089
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2023

The Companies failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds about the petitioning debts; on the evidence the loan agreements were negotiated and completed at the stated Hong Kong address so s.18(2)(j) was not breached; accordingly there was no basis to refuse the petitions on those grounds and the court adjourned the petitions to allow the Companies an opportunity to pay the debts rather than make immediate winding-up orders.
9 Apr 2024

TOP INTEGRATED GROUP LTD v. MID-LEVELS NO. 1 HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 999
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW108/2024

Given the extensive obstructive conduct, uncertainty and real risk to assets, the court concluded the ex parte appointment of provisional liquidators was justified by urgency and need for secrecy; there was a prima facie case for winding up and the appointment would serve to protect assets and enable investigation. The Appointment Orders were therefore continued and the Discharge Summonses dismissed; limited costs directions were made (including an order nisi that Purported Directors may not recover costs from the Companies and Official Receiver's costs of HK$29,000 to be costs in the petitio…
9 Apr 2024

TOP INTEGRATED GROUP LTD v. ZHENGTAN HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 999
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW109/2024

The court continued the ex parte Appointment Orders and dismissed the Discharge Summonses because the Liquidators, as the only persons entitled to control the assets following the WU Order, had demonstrated urgent and continuing obstruction by the former directors and purported directors such that provisional liquidators were necessary to preserve assets and enable independent investigation; the ex parte hearing was justified by urgency and need for secrecy; no material non-disclosure vitiated the orders; and there was a prima facie case for winding up such that continuation pending the petit…
25 Oct 2023

RE SHANDONG CHENMING PAPER HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2731
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW175/2017

Leave to appeal was granted because there are conflicting first‑instance decisions on whether Guy Lam applies to arbitration clauses in the context of winding‑up petitions; the issue is of sufficient importance and public interest to warrant appellate clarification, and the Court of Appeal should have the opportunity to determine the correct application of the Lasmos approach and the bona fide defence requirement in this context.
3 Sept 2021

TANG CHACK WING v. YUNG WOON KWAI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1837/2020

The court held that the defendant demonstrated arguable defences and triable issues because it is arguable the SPA contains implied obligations preventing the plaintiff from taking steps (including winding-up petitions) that would diminish the companies' value or prevent completion and that the plaintiff's winding-up proceedings may evince an intention not to be bound; accordingly summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend was granted.
29 Apr 2021

RE CHINA GREENFRESH GROUP CO, LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1257
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW213/2020

Where a subsequent winding-up petition is clearly improperly presented the court should dismiss it; where there are extenuating circumstances the court should order removal from the court file. Costs are to be determined by the court's discretion having regard to the conduct of the parties and their solicitors; muddled conduct may justify no order as to costs. Applying these principles: HCCW 83/2020 adjourned with directions; HCCW 187/2020 removed from the court file with no order as to costs; HCCW 213/2020 dismissed with no order as to costs.
29 Apr 2021

RE CHINA GREENFRESH GROUP CO, LTD (“the Company”)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1257
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW83/2020

HCCW 83/2020 was adjourned for directions and evidence on restructuring; HCCW 187/2020 was ordered removed from the court file with no order as to costs due to extenuating circumstances; HCCW 213/2020 was dismissed but no order as to costs was made because the solicitors on both sides conducted the matter in a sufficiently muddled way to justify no costs order.