Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (CFA) recently handed down its judgment in the case of Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, upholding the Court of Appeal's earlier decision that a creditor's bankruptcy petition presented in Hong Kong should not be allowed to proceed where the petitioned debt is disputed and arises from an agreement with an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court.
On 30 August 2022, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's decision in the case of Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP and held that a creditor's bankruptcy petition presented in Hong Kong should not be allowed to proceed where the petitioned debt was disputed and arose from an agreement with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court.
Summary
Generally with a winding-up petition, if the petitioner is successful in obtaining a winding-up order, the petitioner will have its costs of the proceedings. If, on the other hand, the petition is dismissed, then the petitioner has been unsuccessful and it should pay the costs of the proceedings. We explore the Companies Court’s treatment of costs in three recent decisions below.
From what Assets should a Petitioner have its Costs?
Under Hong Kong law, the courts’ jurisdiction is ordinarily territorial in nature. A plaintiff or applicant has to obtain permission (“leave”) of the court before it can validly serve a writ or other document initiating a legal action on a defendant or respondent located outside Hong Kong. For actions begun by writ, the procedures and criteria for applications for leave in this respect are set out under Order 11 of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”).
Did you know that a liquidator of a foreign company may seek the assistance of the Hong Kong Court to obtain orders for the production of information which orders are, in substance, of the type made in Hong Kong windings-up under section 221(3) of the Companies (Winding-up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance?
In the bankruptcy proceedings in respect of Mr Gabriel Ricardo Dias-Azedo (the "Bankrupt"), the Court of First Instance recently exercised its discretion under sections 37(2) and 97 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (BO) in favour of two creditors and granted them a priority claim against the Bankrupt's estate for their costs in preserving his assets incurred before receiving notice of the bankruptcy petition.
Background
Two recent Hong Kong cases highlight the importance for creditors to pursue action for debt recovery swiftly, as any undue delay may impact on the period for which interest is recoverable and may prevent any enforcement action on a judgment debt.
Bankruptcy Petition on a Judgment Debt Time Barred
Re Li Man Hoo, Re Foo SHuk Man Patty
In the recent case of Lau Siu Hung v. Krzystof Marszalek (HCCW 484/2009, 17 June 2013) the Court of First Instance held that an annulment of bankruptcy does not debar a creditor, who has not proved his provable debt, from asserting his claim after the annulment.
Procedural Background
In The Joint and Several Liquidators of QQ Club Limited (in liquidation) v. Golden Year Limited (HCCW 245/2011, 9 April 2013) (QQ Club), the Court of First Instance held that a liquidator's costs in pursuing an avoidance claim are "fees and expenses properly incurred in preserving, realizing or getting in the assets", and are payable out of the company's assets in priority to all other payments prescribed in rule 179 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the English Court of Appeal's decision in Lewis v.