[2025] HKCFI 1121, the Court answered this important question of principle in the negative, giving four reasons:

However, DHCJ Gary CC Lam emphasised that there may be different considerations where the factual matrix may be slightly different – for example, where the legal proceedings “are not ongoing but finally concluded” and the “receiving party may be to blame for not enforcing any immediately payable costs orders earlier”.

At a broader level, this decision shows that a cross-claim (even if genuine and serious) does not automatically constitute a valid ground of opposition to a winding-up petition. To this end, it is necessary to examine the inter-relationship between the petition debt and the cross-claim so as to determine whether it would be “unjust or inequitable to allow the petitioner to seek a winding-up order against the company”.

, instructed by Y.T. Chan & Co., acted for the Petitioner.

, instructed by H.Y. Leung & Co. LLP, acted for the Company.

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Can a Company Resist a Winding-Up Petition Based on Costs Orders Payable Forthwith with a Cross-Claim Based on Ongoing Legal Proceedings?

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New