RE KONG KING ONG ALEXANDER

RE KONG KING ONG ALEXANDER

The petitioner's refusal was not unreasonable because the repayment proposal lacked sufficient certainty and enforceability: the sale agreement's balance was conditional and not guaranteed, the proceeds would be received by a third party (Sino Dynamic) with no binding undertaking to pay the petitioner, the debtor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RE KONG KING ONG ALEXANDER
Parties
Petitioner: AMTD Risk Management Limited; Debtor: Kong King Ong Alexander; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 August 2009
Case Number
HCB10771/2008
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment (substantive Hearing)
Outcome
Bankruptcy order made against the Debtor
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Petition, Section 6 D(3) Bankruptcy Ordinance, Repayment Proposal, Dismissal of Petition
Source Language
en
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Petition Section 6 D(3) Bankruptcy Ordinance Repayment Proposal Dismissal of Petition

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMTD Risk Management Limited

Petitioner

Kong King Ong Alexander

Debtor

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment (substantive Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner unreasonably refused the debtor's offer under section 6D(3) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the debtor's repayment proposal was credible and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the sale agreement for Akasas provided sufficient certainty of funds

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner's refusal was not unreasonable because the repayment proposal lacked sufficient certainty and enforceability: the sale agreement's balance was conditional and not guaranteed, the proceeds would be received by a third party (Sino Dynamic) with no binding undertaking to pay the petitioner, the debtor failed to provide timely full disclosure of finances and liabilities, and there was real doubt as to the debtor's ability to make the proposed monthly payments; accordingly section 6D(3) was not satisfied and a bankruptcy order was made.

Court Disposition

Bankruptcy order made against the Debtor

Orders

  • Bankruptcy order made against Kong King Ong Alexander
  • Costs awarded to AMTD Risk Management Limited