In Re Success Lane Development Limited [2025] HKCFI 1121, the Companies Court considered whether a company could resist a winding-up petition presented based on outstanding interlocutory costs orders (payable forthwith or within 14 days upon summary assessment) by relying on a cross-claim for damages in ongoing legal proceedings.

Background

The dispute between the Petitioner and the debtor Company  arose over a "Long Stay Room Contract" under which the Company rented a hotel room for storage purposes.  In the District Court, the Petitioner alleged that the Company had damaged various items stored in the hotel room, and claimed against the Petitioner for damages in the sum of at least HK$3,000,000.

The Petitioner had obtained various costs orders against the Company as a result of interlocutory applications in the District Court proceedings.  The costs orders are all payable forthwith in the total sum of HK$697,534.66 plus judgment interest (the “Costs Orders”).

Based on the unpaid Costs Orders, the Petitioner served a Statutory Demand on the Company.  Shortly after the expiry of the Statutory Demand, the Company applied to set aside and stay the Costs Orders by commencing a separate set of District Court proceedings.  Yet, the said applications were also dismissed.

As of the date of the Petition hearing, the Costs Order were either orders not appealed against, or orders against which leave to appeal had been refused by the Court of Appeal.  The main issue at the hearing was whether the Company could resist the Petition (based on Costs Orders payable forthwith) with a cross-claim (for damages in the sum of at least HK$3,000,000 in the ongoing District Court proceedings, the “Cross-claim”).

The Court’s Reasons

The Companies Court held that the Company could not resist the Petition with the Cross-claim for the following reasons:-

(1) The underlying policy of making costs orders payable forthwith is to deter parties from commencing unmeritorious interlocutory applications. To uphold this policy, the Court should regard such costs orders as free-standing, and though such costs orders are not equivalent of cash, it should be as readily enforceable almost as readily cash-able as cheques. In this case, the Company should not be allowed to use the Cross-claim to resist the Petition.

(2) There could be no injustice done to the Company if it is to be wound up, because if the Company has a valid claim against the Petitioner, the Company in liquidation could still pursue it.

(3) On the contrary, it would be unjust if the Company could resist the Petition based on the Corss-clam, as (a) it would in effect confer a right on the Company to retain the Petitioner’s money as a security for its Cross-claim, and (b) the Costs Orders, being free-standing and supposed to be readily enforceable, have nothing to do with the Cross-claim, in the sense that even if the Company eventually succeeds in its claim in the District Court, the Company would still have to pay the Costs Orders.

Having said that, the Companies Court also indicated that its decision was made based on the present facts, and that there may be different considerations if, e.g. the District Court main proceedings are not ongoing but finally concluded, or the receiving party may be to blame for not enforcing any immediately payable costs orders earlier.

In view of this case, company debtors should note that the existence of a cross-claim against the petitioner generally would not constitute a valid ground to oppose a winding-up petition presented based on costs orders payable forthwith.  As such, it is advisable for company debtors to settle any costs orders payable forthwith as soon as possible to avoid winding-up petitions being presented against them.  In case of any doubt, legal advice should be sought.

If you have any inquiries, please feel free to contact us for more information.

Managing Partner: Ian Lo

Email: [email protected]

Partner: Anderson Siu

Email: [email protected]