RE FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHUM WAN MAN

RE FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHUM WAN MAN

The court held that s30A(6) requires notification and the application under s30A(3) to be made not less than 14 days before the end of the relevant period (thus the Objection Summons was issued late), the court has power under s100(4) to extend time in principle but declined to exercise that discretion where the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1720
Parties
Applicant/creditor: Hong Kong Construction Financing Limited; Bankrupt: Shum Tung Lam formerly known as Shum Wan Man; Trustees in Bankruptcy: Joint & Several Trustees (including Fred Lee)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Case Number
HCB1536/2015
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Hearing on Preliminary Issue and Related Summons Concerning Objection to Automatic Discharge
Outcome
Objection Summons dismissed; Amendment Summons, Para 3 Application, Time Summons, Affidavit Summons and Cross-Examination Summons dismissed; Interim Order discharged; costs order nisi made (each party to bear own costs unless varied).
Legal Topics
Automatic Discharge, Objection to Discharge, Time Limits and Extension, Interim Orders, Amendment of Proceedings, Service of Documents, Costs
Source Language
en
Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Automatic Discharge Objection to Discharge Time Limits and Extension Interim Orders Amendment of Proceedings +2 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Kong Construction Financing Limited

Applicant/creditor

Shum Tung Lam formerly known as Shum Wan Man

Bankrupt

Joint & Several Trustees (including Fred Lee)

Trustees in Bankruptcy

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceedings / Hearing on Preliminary Issue and Related Summons Concerning Objection to Automatic Discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court has jurisdiction to hear an objection to automatic discharge issued out of time under s30A(6) BO
  2. 2 Whether the temporal requirement in s30A(6) applies to both notice and the application for an order under s30A(3)
  3. 3 Whether the court can extend the time to issue an objection under the Bankruptcy Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s30A(6) requires notification and the application under s30A(3) to be made not less than 14 days before the end of the relevant period (thus the Objection Summons was issued late), the court has power under s100(4) to extend time in principle but declined to exercise that discretion where the Objection Summons both breached the statutory timing and relied on grounds not stated in the Form 82; accordingly the interim suspension was discharged and the objection dismissed.

Court Disposition

Objection Summons dismissed; Amendment Summons, Para 3 Application, Time Summons, Affidavit Summons and Cross-Examination Summons dismissed; Interim Order discharged; costs order nisi made (each party to bear own costs unless varied).

Orders

  • Amendment Summons dismissed insofar as it sought to amend grounds of objection
  • Para 3 Application dismissed