RE SIT WAI

HCB 9798/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 9798 OF 2025

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

__________________________________

1.  By petition dated 22 December 2025, Ms Yang Yanfang (the “Petitioner”) seeks to bankrupt Mr Sit Wai (the “Debtor”).

2.  Having considered the parties’ evidence and submissions, at the hearing on 30 March 2026, I granted the usual bankruptcy order against the Debtor.

3.  These are the reasons for my judgment.

4.  The petition is premised on a judgment of the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen dated 27 February 2024 in Guangdong Province Civil Appeal Case No (2023) Yue 03 Min Zhong 996 (the “Mainland Judgment”).

5.  The said Mainland Judgment has been duly registered in Hong Kong under HCRE 63/2024. The Debtor was ordered to pay an aggregate sum of HK$6,510,222.15 (together with interest) to the Petitioner.

6.  On 28 November 2025, the Petitioner, via her solicitors, personally served a statutory demand on the Debtor, demanding him to pay the indebtedness under the Mainland Judgment.

7.  Since the statutory demand had not been complied with, the Petitioner presented the petition herein on 22 December 2025.

8.  Ms Cecilia Chang (for the Debtor) fairly accepted that the Debtor is indebted to the Petitioner under the Mainland Judgment. This is consistent with the tacit admission in the Debtor’s notice of intention to oppose petition dated 23 March 2026. As stated in this document, the Debtor’s sole ground for opposing the petition is that he “is able to pay the petitioning debt”.

9.  At the hearing, Ms Chang emphasized that:-

(1)  The Petitioner had received a sum of RMB1,814,637.53 (which is equivalent to HK$1,924,550.13) via the enforcement proceedings in the Mainland[1].

(2)  The Debtor has 50% interests in a property in Fanling. It is intended that this property be sold. The estimated sale proceeds arising from the intended sale are HK$4,000,000, and the Debtor’s 50% share would be HK$2,000,000.

10.  However, even if Ms Chang’s suggestion is to be fully accepted, the Debtor will still owe the Petitioner a net sum of HK$2,585,672.02, ie HK$6,510,222.15 (the petitioning debt) less HK$1,924,550.13 (the sum recovered under the enforcement proceedings in the Mainland) less HK$2,000,000 (the Debtor’s 50% share of the estimated sale proceeds of the property in Fanling).

11.  There is no evidence before the court showing that the Debtor has the financial means to pay the Petitioner a net sum in the region of about HK$2.5 million.

12.  Further, on the evidence before the court, the Debtor had not put forward a meaningful and concrete proposal to secure or compound for the indebtedness in question. In the letter dated 23 December 2025, the Debtor’s solicitors merely indicated that the Debtor was “prepared to settle [his] outstanding indebtedness by way of reasonable instalments”. There was no indication as to the period within which the entirety of the indebtedness is to be repaid. There was also no information as to the financial means of the Debtor.

13.  Put simply, the Debtor’s proposal was vague and unparticularized.

14.  In my view, the Petitioner was entitled to reject the same and insist on seeking a bankruptcy order against the Debtor.

15.  In the premises, I make the usual bankruptcy order against the Debtor.

16.  I also order that the Petitioner’s costs in these proceedings (which are to be taxed if not agreed) be paid out of the estate of the Debtor.

17.  I thank Mr Esmond Wong (counsel for the Petitioner) and Ms Cecilia Chang for their assistance.