CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) V. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS (and 1 other)

[2026] HKCFI 276 Court of First Instance 16 January 2026 • HCA1417/2013; HCA3391/2016 • 248 min read
76 cases cited (0 HK, 76 foreign) Cited by 3 cases

Judges (1)

Counsel (8)

Parties (26)

Case Significance

China Medical Technologies, Inc. (In Liquidation) v. Wu Xiaodong and Others (and 1 other) [2026] HKCFI 276 was decided in the Court of First Instance on 16 January 2026, one stage in a liquidation dispute between the same parties that also produced [2024] HKCFI 278 and [2025] HKCFI 4997. The court's reasoning engaged with High Fashion New Media Corporation Ltd (Suing on Behalf of Itself and Also in Its Capacity as the Sole Shareholder of Longford Information and Technology Co Ltd) v. Leong Ma Li [2024] HKCA 1067, BCPE Diamond Holdco SRL v. Sunwe Plastic HK Ltd and Others [2024] HKCFI 3370, and Sunni International Ltd (In Liquidation) v. Kao Wai Ho Francis and Others (and 2 others) [2025] HKCFI 3398. It was later cited in GMT Industrial Ltd v. Fan Rong Li and Another [2026] HKCFI 1982, BPI Trading (SG) Pte Ltd v. Baig Mohammed Adil [2026] HKCFI 2448, and Evercare Health Ltd v. So Lai Kan Also Known as Gobby So and Others [2026] HKDC 230.

What earlier decisions form part of the same dispute as China Medical Technologies, Inc. (In Liquidation) v. Wu Xiaodong and Others ([2026] HKCFI 276)?

China Medical Technologies, Inc. (In Liquidation) v. Wu Xiaodong and Others (and 1 other) [2026] HKCFI 276 follows earlier Court of First Instance decisions between the same parties in [2024] HKCFI 278 and [2025] HKCFI 4997, all arising from the same liquidation proceedings.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (76)

UK (51)
[1896] AC 44 [1942] AC 435 [1942] Ch 304 [1949] 1 KB 550 [1967] 2 AC 46 [1974] AC 821 [1979] 1 WLR 783 [1991] AC 548 [1994] 2 All ER 685 [1994] 4 All ER 890 [1995] 2 AC 378 [1996] AC 563 [1996] AC 669 [1998] Ch 1 [1998] Ch 241 [1999] 1 All ER 400 [2001] Ch 437 [2002] 2 AC 164 [2003] 1 AC 384 [2003] 1 AC 469 [2003] 2 AC 1 [2004] 1 WLR 1846 [2005] 1 WLR 1157 [2005] EWHC 1638 [2006] 1 WLR 1476 [2008] 1 AC 1174 [2010] 1 WLR 2793 [2012] Ch 453 [2012] EWHC 2168 [2013] EWHC 3560 [2014] AC 1189 [2014] AC 938 [2015] EWHC 3073 [2018] AC 275 [2018] AC 391 [2018] AC 857 [2018] Ch 25 [2018] EWHC 2230 [2020] AC 727 [2020] Ch 129 [2020] Ch 421 [2021] 1 WLR 3863 [2021] 2 All ER 1105 [2021] QB 1183 [2022] AC 995 [2022] UKPC 47 [2024] AC 1191 [2024] AC 211 [2024] AC 679 [2025] 1 WLR 1383 [2025] 3 WLR 423
HK (25)
(2002) 5 HKCFAR 336 (2004) 7 HKCFAR 79 (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387 (2008) 11 HKCFAR 594 (2009) 12 HKCFAR 139 (2010) 13 HKCFAR 479 (2024) 27 HKCFAR 634 [1998] 3 HKC 153 [2007] 3 HKLRD 439 [2010] 2 HKLRD 537 [2018] 1 HKLRD 1087 [2019] 3 HKLRD 833 [2019] HKCFI 2397 [2021] 4 HKC 1 [2021] 4 HKLRD 594 [2021] HKCA 1846 [2021] HKCFI 141 [2022] HKCFI 1153 [2023] 4 HKLRD 544 [2024] HKCA 1067 [2024] HKCFI 278 [2024] HKCFI 3370 [2025] 3 HKLRD 1 [2025] HKCFI 3398 [2025] HKCFI 4997

Cited By (3)

Citation influence

HKLII records this judgment as cited by 3 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.

Related cases

Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2026] HKCFI 276)