RE 伍伸俊 ALSO KNOWN AS WU SHENJUN OR WU SONNY

RE 伍伸俊 ALSO KNOWN AS WU SHENJUN OR WU SONNY

The court refused to admit the debtor's late evidence and refused the adjournment because the evidence did not show the enforceability of the alleged arbitral award or that the debtor would receive its benefit, and because undue delay would prejudice the petitioner; consequently a bankruptcy order with costs to the petitioner was made.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 824
Parties
Petitioner: 协鑫资本管理有限公司 (GCL Capital Management Co., Ltd.); Debtor: 伍伸俊 (also known as Wu Shenjun or Wu Sonny)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Case Number
HCB1747/2020
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Hearing and Judgment (bankruptcy Order Granted)
Outcome
Bankruptcy order made in favour of the Petitioner; costs awarded to the Petitioner
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Order, Admission of Late Evidence, Adjournment, Enforceability of Arbitral Awards, Delay Prejudice
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure Arbitration Enforcement Bankruptcy Order Admission of Late Evidence Adjournment Enforceability of Arbitral Awards +1 more

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

协鑫资本管理有限公司 (GCL Capital Management Co., Ltd.)

Petitioner

伍伸俊 (also known as Wu Shenjun or Wu Sonny)

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceedings / Hearing and Judgment (bankruptcy Order Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to admit late evidence and grant adjournment
  2. 2 Whether the debtor's reliance on an alleged arbitral award prevents making a bankruptcy order
  3. 3 Whether there is evidence the paying party can or will honour the award and that the debtor will benefit

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to admit the debtor's late evidence and refused the adjournment because the evidence did not show the enforceability of the alleged arbitral award or that the debtor would receive its benefit, and because undue delay would prejudice the petitioner; consequently a bankruptcy order with costs to the petitioner was made.

Court Disposition

Bankruptcy order made in favour of the Petitioner; costs awarded to the Petitioner

Orders

  • Refuse admission of the debtor's new evidence
  • Refuse adjournment of the hearing