RE YU PUN HOI

RE YU PUN HOI

The summonses were dismissed and the adjournment refused because the applications were made very late without credible explanation, the Petitioner would suffer substantial prejudice from late evidence, the new evidence was of little probative value and raised credibility concerns, the Debtor had ample time and legal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 922
Parties
Petitioner: CCB International Overseas Limited (建銀國際海外有限公司); Debtor: Yu Pun Hoi (于品海)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Case Number
HCB6118/2023
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Substantive Hearing — Application for Adjournment and Leave to File Further Evidence
Outcome
Summonses dismissed and adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Late Filing of Evidence, Leave to File Affidavit, Valuation of Security, Charging Orders and Priority, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
en
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Evidence Company Law Costs Adjournment Late Filing of Evidence +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CCB International Overseas Limited (建銀國際海外有限公司)

Petitioner

Yu Pun Hoi (于品海)

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / Substantive Hearing — Application for Adjournment and Leave to File Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for late filing of affidavit evidence
  2. 2 Whether the substantive hearing should be adjourned
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence is credible and probative to show the Petitioner is fully secured

Ratio Decidendi

The summonses were dismissed and the adjournment refused because the applications were made very late without credible explanation, the Petitioner would suffer substantial prejudice from late evidence, the new evidence was of little probative value and raised credibility concerns, the Debtor had ample time and legal representation to present relevant evidence earlier, and there was no real prospect that further time would enable the Debtor to establish that the Petitioner’s security covered the petitioning debt; indemnity costs were ordered due to the dilatory conduct.

Court Disposition

Summonses dismissed and adjournment refused

Orders

  • Dismissed Debtor’s Summons dated 18 March 2024 (leave to file Yu 2nd Affirmation refused)
  • Dismissed Debtor’s Summons dated 22 March 2024 (leave to file Yu 3rd Affirmation refused)