有關 劉杰的事宜
Because the applicant repeatedly adjourned the petition for nearly 11 months, failed to engage with creditors and sought to use the petition to buy negotiating time thereby demonstrating no intention to obtain a bankruptcy order, the petition constituted an abuse of process and should be withdrawn/dismissed; costs...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] HKCFI 153
- Parties
- Applicant/debtor: 劉杰 (Lau Kit); Respondent/official Receiver: 破產管理署署長 (Official Receiver)
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 25 November 2019
- Case Number
- HCB7284/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy Petition / Hearing on Petition; Multiple Adjournments; Decision Whether to Dismiss Petition for Abuse of Process
- Outcome
- Petition withdrawn/dismissed for abuse of process and undue delay
- Legal Topics
- Bankruptcy Petition, Abuse of Process, Dismissal for Delay, Costs
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
劉杰 (Lau Kit)
Applicant/debtor
破產管理署署長 (Official Receiver)
Respondent/official Receiver
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Hearing on Petition; Multiple Adjournments; Decision Whether to Dismiss Petition for Abuse of Process
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bankruptcy petition should be dismissed for abuse of process and undue delay
- 2 Whether the applicant lacks intention to pursue a bankruptcy order and is using the petition to buy time for negotiations
- 3 Whether costs should be ordered payable to the Official Receiver
Ratio Decidendi
Because the applicant repeatedly adjourned the petition for nearly 11 months, failed to engage with creditors and sought to use the petition to buy negotiating time thereby demonstrating no intention to obtain a bankruptcy order, the petition constituted an abuse of process and should be withdrawn/dismissed; costs ordered against the applicant to be paid to the Official Receiver and deducted from the deposit.
Court Disposition
Petition withdrawn/dismissed for abuse of process and undue delay
Orders
- Petition dismissed/withdrawn
- Applicant to pay Official Receiver's costs of HKD 5,300 to be deducted from the deposit
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCB 7284/2018 [2020] HKCFI 153 香港特別行政區 高等法院原訟法庭 民事司法管轄權 破產案件編號2018年第7284號 ____________ 有關呈請人/債務人劉杰 (LAU KIT) 的事宜 ____________ 主審法官 ：高等法院原訟法庭法官歐陽桂如法庭聆訊 聆訊日期 ：2019年11月25日 判案日期 ：2019年11月25日 判案書 呈請人在2018年12月17日發出呈請申請自己的破產，根據他自己的資產負債狀況說明書，他有4名債權人。 今天已是第9次聆訊，每一次的聆訊都是因為呈請人申請與債權人磋商還款的方案，或者離港回鄉而押後。經多次的押後，在2019年11月15日的誓章中，呈請人仍然告訴法庭未能與最少兩名個債權人達成協議。法庭已給了多次機會呈請人，在2019年11月19日的聆訊中，聆案官已經表達呈請人能夠與債權人達成協議的機會不高，案件從2019年8月至今無大進展。聆案官當日指出，呈請人遺漏了其中一名債權人，沒有與他接觸，該是恒生。聆案官提醒呈請人，在再下一次聆訊，即是今天，他應該撤回呈請，或者法官可能發出破產令。當時呈請人選擇將案件轉交負責破產案件的法官處理，於是聆訊今天由本席處理。 今天呈請人缺席，明顯地他未能與任何債權人達成協議。考慮整體的情況，本席認為將一個破產呈請拖延11個月並不理想。看來呈請人想利用本呈請給予自己時間與債權人磋商債務重組。但這一目的正正就是顯示他沒有意圖為自己申請破產令，再將這一個呈請保留、押後是濫用司法程序。所有法庭的程序一經開展，應該在合理的時間內完成。本案的文件一早已準備好，但是呈請人既然無意圖申請破產令，本席認為應該將他的呈請撤銷。 （法官與吳大律師討論有關訟費申請事宜） 呈請人需要支付破產管理署的訟費5,300元，由按金之中扣除。 (歐陽桂如) 高等法院原訟法庭法官 呈請人/債務人：無律師代表，缺席聆訊 破產管理署署長：由破產管理署轉聘吳珞珩大律師代表