XU RUQI v. VALUABLE CAPITAL LTD

HCSD 37/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE A STATUTORY DEMAND NO. 37 OF 2026

________________

__________________

__________________

DECISION

__________________

1.  The present summons is an application by Xu Ruqi (“Mr Xu”) for directions to stay (or adjourn) the hearing on Thursday 20 August 2026 of a summons he has issued to set aside a Statutory Demand (SD).

Background

2.  Briefly, on 12 February 2025, a writ was issued by Valuable Capital Ltd (“VCL”) against Mr Xu for a sum said to be due on his account.  VCL’s solicitors sought to serve the writ on him by registered post at an address in Tseung Kwan O.  The address had been given by him as his residential and correspondence address in the account opening form in 2022.  In the same account opening form, Mr Xu gave a Hong Kong identity card number and a Hong Kong mobile telephone number.

3.  Service was unsuccessful as the registered post was returned.

4.  On 6 November 2025, Master Yip gave an order for substituted service comprising: (1) emailing the order and the writ to a Hotmail email address, and (2) inserting an advertisement of a Chinese notice of the proceedings in a Hong Kong newspaper.  That was done on 5 December 2025.

5.  When there was no action from Mr Xu, VCL applied for default judgment, which was given on 25 March 2026 and filed on 9 April 2026.  The judgment sum was for more than HKD4.3 million (“the HCA judgment”).

6.  On 22 April 2026, VCL’s solicitors issued the SD against Mr Xu in the judgment sum which together with interest and costs came up to more than HKD 4.8 million.  The SD with supporting documents including the HCA judgment was served on Mr Xu by WeChat pursuant to Practice Direction 3.1 para. 2.1(b).

7.  On 11 May 2026, Mr Xu issued a summons to set aside the SD.  This was supported by an affirmation in which he said (1) the default judgment was irregular as he had not been properly served as he was not in Hong Kong on 5 December 2025 when the newspaper advertisement was circulated, (2) he had a meritorious defence, and (3) he will apply to set aside the judgment.

8.  On 11 June 2026, the summons to set aside the SD was fixed to be heard on 20 August 2026.

9.  However, it was not until 7 August 2026 that Mr Xu issued a summons to set aside the HCA judgment, supported by an affirmation. On the same day, he issued the present summons to stay the hearing of the summons due to be heard on 20 August (i.e. the summons to set aside the SD).

Discussion

10.  It is a well-established rule of practice that an SD based on a judgment debt would, as a general rule, not be set aside pending an application to set aside the judgment, whether it be obtained on the merits, in default, or by consent (see the English Practice Note quoted at para. 22 in Leung Kwok Chun v Seavi Advent Asia Investments (IV) Ltd HCSD16/2016, 29 November 2016, and the Hong Kong cases cited in paras. 23-25, and paras. 29-30).

11.  It is a matter for discussion at the hearing on Thursday (of the summons to set aside the SD) whether Mr Xu can demonstrate that his case should fall outside the general rule, and I do not wish to pre-empt the arguments that will be advanced at that hearing.  However, to order today that that hearing should be stayed pending the summons to set aside the HCA judgment would even pre-empt consideration by the court whether the rule of practice should apply or not, and I see no justification for taking such an extraordinary action.

Order

12.  I shall therefore hear the parties on the summons to set aside the SD on Thursday, and I shall dismiss the present summons.

(After hearing submissions on costs)

13.  Mr Xu is to pay VCL the costs of the present summons.  VCL may file a statement of costs for summary assessment by 4 pm on 20 August 2026 (Thursday), and Mr Xu is to have leave to file any statement of opposition by 4 pm on 24 August 2026 (Monday).