Disclaimer: These articles do not constitute legal advice and seek to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs included in this document are for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter related to the cases summarised. The views and opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the members authoring them and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.
Insights
This edition of DCC Commercial Digest features a selection of significant judgments released in September 2026. Curated by Lee Siu Him and Henry Cheng, this issue highlights six noteworthy cases, each accompanied by a concise summary. Our aim is to provide valuable insights into recent legal developments and enhance understanding of critical issues in commercial law.
Summary of Cases
Case 1: The Court of First Instance finds that pleading a factually inconsistent fallback claim after securing foreign judgments on a contrary narrative is an opportunistic abuse of process.
Chen Hongqing v Liu Yiu Keung Stephen [2026] HKCFI 5023
Date of Decision:1 September 2026
Coram:eung JA (sitting as an additional CFI judge)
The Court ruled that a proposed Alternative Claim Amendment comprising of a fallback claim for loan repayment constituted abuse because the Plaintiff obtained a previous Mainland judgment and arbitral award on different and inconsistent factual and legal bases of agency; and the Plaintiff could not justify the inconsistent pleading because he himself had personal knowledge of the facts.
Case 2: The Court of First Instance extends the common law power of recognition and assistance to compulsory liquidation of a solvent company
Forever Winner International Limited (in liquidation) [2026] HKCFI 5125
Date of Decision: 8 September 2026
Coram: Linda Chan J
The Court of First Instance extends the common law power of recognition and assistance to compulsory liquidation of a solvent company, re-stating the governing criteria and granted an order.
Case 3: The Court of First Instance confirms its jurisdiction to order a debtor to provide security when adjourning local enforcement proceedings pending a foreign challenge, even if the debtor does not seek a stay of enforcement
CL v C [2026] HKCFI 5072
Date of Judgment: 10 September 2026
Coram: Mimmie Chan J
The Court of First Instance confirmed its jurisdiction to order a debtor to provide security when adjourning local enforcement proceedings pending a foreign challenge to an arbitral award, even if the debtor does not seek a stay of enforcement. However, the court refused to order security for the US$2,100,000 award because the creditor failed to show that the adjournment would cause prejudice or make future enforcement more difficult.
Case 4: Court of First Instance upheld registration of Singaporean default judgment based on casino gambling debt, rejecting claims of lack of notice, public-policy objection to gambling debts, and intoxication
Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Yau Kan Kan [2026] HKCFI 5286
Date of Judgment: 16 September 2026
Coram: DHCJ Alan Kwong
In rejecting the Defendant’s application to set aside the registration of a Singaporean default judgment entered against the Defendant for gambling debts incurred at a casino, the Court found on the evidence that there the Defendant failed to provide convincing or compelling evidence that he had not received notice of the Singaporean proceedings, that the enforcement of a foreign judgment for money lent for lawful gambling abroad was not contrary to Hong Kong public policy, and that there was no room to reopen questions on substantive merits already decided by the foreign court.
Case 5: Court of Appeal confirmed jurisdiction to grant consequential proprietary and restitutionary remedies upon an application under s.182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, but post-petition payments made pursuant to a pre-petition agreement were not caught by s.182
Joint and Several Liquidators of Hsin Chong Construction (Asia) Limited (In Liquidation) v Wong Po Kee Ltd & Others [2026] HKCA 1656
Date of Judgment: 18 November 2026
Coram: Chu VP and G Lam JA
The Court of Appeal confirmed the Court’s jurisdiction to make consequential orders and grant consequential relief, including proprietary and/or restitutionary remedies, in an application under s.182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, in respect of post-petition dispositions of a company’s property rendered void by the operation of that section. However, in the instant case where the relevant property was the right of the Company to receive certain payments, the Court of Appeal held that such right had been effectively disposed of or divested by the Company pursuant to a pre-petition agreement, and therefore even though the payments themselves were made after the winding-up petition was presented, they did not constitute dispositions caught by s.182.
Case 6: Court of First Instance dismissed application for cross-examination on affidavit, finding that no useful purpose could be served by the order sought
Kot See For v Lam Man Cheung & Others [2026] HKCFI 5558
Date of Judgment: 30 September 2026
Coram: Lisa Wong J
In dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for cross-examination of the 2nd Defendant on a series of affirmations filed by him in purported compliance with a disclosure order, the Court held that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the 2nd Defendant had information which should have been disclosed pursuant to the disclosure order and which would lead to the fulfilment of the purpose of that order or the relevant assets being located and preserved. The Plaintiff had not demonstrated what useful purpose could be served by the order sought, and what answers could be extracted by subjecting the 2nd Defendant to cross-examination.