CFI refuses stay; secured creditor may demand despite full security

In HCSD 34/2024, Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Wong refused the debtor's summons of 15 December 2025 for a stay pending appealJudiciaryJudiciary. Tang Mo Lin Irene sought to hold off the Main Decision of 27 November 2025, which had dismissed her set-aside applicationJudiciary and authorised a bankruptcy petition after 14 days. The stay decision, [2026] HKCFI 5829 dated 20 October 2026, was made on the papers.

The creditor, the trustees of Wong Yuk Tung's property, enforces a judgment debt secured by two charging orders conceded to exceed the debt in valueJudiciary. The demand stated the creditor was willing, if a bankruptcy order were made, to give up the securities for all creditorsJudiciary, in the words of section 6B(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance.

The appeal attacks mainly whether a fully secured creditor can issue a statutory demand at allJudiciary. Rule 44(5) of the Bankruptcy Rules requires the demand to specify the security, the value put on it, and to claim only the balance. Rule 48(5) allows set-aside where rule 44(5) is breached or the security equals or exceeds the debt, or on other groundsJudiciary. The debtor argued a fully secured creditor can never satisfy rule 44(5), section 6B(1) answers only the later petition stage, and the creditor should enforce to an unsatisfied return under section 6A(1)(b) before petitioning.

The court rejected that regimeJudiciary. Sections 6 and 6A make an uncomplied, unset-aside demand one route to showing inability to payJudiciary, and section 6B allows a petition debt to be secured where the petitioner will surrender the security for all creditors or carves out the secured part with a valuationElegislation. On the debtor's reading, a creditor willing to surrender under section 6B(1)(a) could never reach the petition stage the exception serves, because every demand would be set aside first; yet after enforcement under section 6A(1)(b) no security would remain to surrender. The prescribed form itself envisages surrender.

On stays, the test summarised in Fung Shing Chung v Choi King Hung [2024] HKCA 1021 was agreed: a stay needs good reason, an arguable appeal is only the minimum, a strong appeal will usually suffice, and otherwise the applicant must show something more, typically that the appeal would be rendered nugatory or refusal would cause serious harm. The court takes only a preliminary view of the merits.

That view did not assist the debtor. The judge did not regard the appeal as strongJudiciary and inclined to agree it lacked even an arguable groundJudiciary. The nugatory argument also failedJudiciary. Following Lok Ho Ting v Keyes Global Holdings Ltd [2026] HKCA 1075, a debtor keeps standing to appeal a refusal to set aside a demand after a bankruptcy orderJudiciary, so proceeding to a petition does not irreversibly compromise the appealJudiciary. The claim that she would potentially be compelled to wind up CTIHL and in turn Cheong On, aborting the land resumption programme, was bare assertionJudiciary: the programme was company business, the rights were not shown to be personal, and her shares would vest in the trustees under section 58.

The stay was dismissedJudiciary with costs nisi to the creditor, summarily assessed on the papers after the creditor files its costs statement within 7 days and the debtor objects within 7 days after that.

Legal basis: Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) ss 6, 6A, 6B, 58; Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 6A) rr 44(5), 48(5); Fung Shing Chung v Choi King Hung [2024] HKCA 1021; Lok Ho Ting v Keyes Global Holdings Ltd [2026] HKCA 1075.