Overview

In a recent judgment in Target Insurance Company Limited v Nerico Brothers Limited & Lee Cheuk Fung Jerff [2025] HKCA 1024 the Court of Appeal has clarified that a director can be made personally liable for the costs incurred by a company under their control and that unreasonably opposes its winding up.

Background

In the recent decision in Blockchain Group Company Limited (in liquidation) v. PKF Hong Kong Limited¹, Le Pichon DHCJ decided that despite an error resulting in a protective writ naming the defendant as a limited company and formerly a firm, the relevant provisions to amend a party’s name could not be used to essentially replace the limited company with the firm.

The recent judgment in Re Proman International Limited¹ reaffirms the court's stance on the suitability of liquidators and the standards of disclosure required of them.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

On 12 July 2023, the Legislative Council enacted the Bankruptcy and Companies Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 2023, a transformative initiative to modernise the filing and notice processes under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) and the Companies (Winding-Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32). With the amendments, the Official Receiver’s Office (ORO) introduces the Electronic Submission System (ESS) to bring the ORO and insolvencies into the 21st century.

Changes effective from 29 December 2023

In the landmark judgment by Linda Chan J in Re Gatecoin Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] HKCFI 914, the Court of First Instance held that cryptocurrencies were property under Hong Kong law capable of being held for distribution to creditors (or beneficiaries if they were trust assets) for the purposes of administrating an insolvent estate. In this article, the authors consider the Court’s ruling and its wider implications for the insolvency regime in Hong Kong, focusing on fraud claims and reviewable transactions in the cryptocurrency context.

In the recent case of Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (17 May 2023), the Hon Linda Chan J confirmed the Hon Harris J’s decision in Re Global Brands Group Holding Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] 3 HKLRD 316 in introducing centre of main interest principles in assessing whether or not the Hong Kong court should recognise a foreign liquidation and assist a foreign office-holder.

Directors who oppose the winding-up of an insolvent company in the hope that a restructuring proposal would come to fruition should tread carefully and consider seriously whether to put the company into liquidation.

An exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) is a clause in a contract limiting the determination of disputes under that contract to one agreed jurisdiction or forum. It has been unclear whether an EJC could be relied upon to dispute a debt in the context of bankruptcy proceedings. It is trite that a bona fide dispute on the debt on substantial grounds is sufficient for a bankruptcy or winding-up petition to fail.