RE LEE HON PONG

HCB 8468/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 8468 OF 2025

__________________________

__________________________

___________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

___________________________________

1.  By petition dated 5 November 2025, Dah Sing Bank Ltd (the “Petitioner”) seeks to bankrupt Mr Lee Hon Pong (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 summary judgment that Registrar Soong entered against, inter alia, the Debtor on 16 May 2025 in DCCJ 6680/2024.

5.  On 22 August 2025, the Petitioner served a statutory demand dated 9 July 2025 by advertisement, demanding the Debtor to pay an aggregate sum of HK$1,226,486.90, which comprises of (i) the judgment sum of HK$1,173,288.58; (ii) interest of HK$33,198.32; and (iii) assessed costs of HK$20,000.

6.  The said statutory demand had not been complied with.

7.  Hence, the Petitioner presented the petition herein on 5 November 2025.

8.  Where the petitioning debt is based on a judgment, the court would treat the judgment as prima facie evidence that the debtor is indebted to the creditor, and the bankruptcy court would not inquire into the judgment, unless there is some evidence showing that the judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion or that there was a miscarriage of justice which impinges on the validity of the judgment: see Re Sin Kwok Lam [2025] HKCFI 3242 at para 15 (per Linda Chan J).

9.  The Debtor is not in a position to impeach the summary judgment in DCCJ 6680/2024. There has been no appeal against the said summary judgment. There is also no suggestion, let alone evidence, showing that the said summary judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion or that there was a miscarriage of justice.

10.  At the hearing, the Debtor merely asked for more time to “sort out” the indebtedness. However, he was unable to put forward a concrete proposal to secure or compound for the indebtedness owed to the Petitioner.

11.  In the premises, I have no alternative but to grant the usual bankruptcy order.

12.  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.

13.  I thank Mr Wilson Yuen (counsel for the Petitioner) for his assistance.