RE CHIU CHIT
The Bankrupt failed to demonstrate sufficient merit in the proposed further appeals and did not provide an indemnity for potential costs; prior appeals were finally disposed of; accordingly the Official Receiver was entitled to refuse consent and the Bankrupt's summons is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- RE CHIU CHIT
- Parties
- Bankrupt/applicant: Chiu Chit; Trustee/respondent: Official Receiver; Creditor/subject of Underlying Actions: Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 24 May 2017
- Case Number
- HCB402/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy / Application to Reverse Official Receiver's Refusal; Hearing in Chambers; Decision Issued
- Outcome
- The Bankrupt's Summons dated 8 August 2016 is dismissed; costs to be determined.
- Legal Topics
- Consent to Commence Proceedings by Bankrupt, Indemnity for Trustee's Costs, Finality of Litigation, Fresh Evidence for Further Appeal, Costs Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Chiu Chit
Bankrupt/applicant
Official Receiver
Trustee/respondent
Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd
Creditor/subject of Underlying Actions
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application to Reverse Official Receiver's Refusal; Hearing in Chambers; Decision Issued
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Official Receiver must consent to a bankrupt commencing further appeals or fresh proceedings
- 2 Whether the existence of alleged fresh evidence justifies reopening appeals that have been finally disposed of
- 3 Whether the trustee may require proof of merit and an indemnity for costs before granting consent
Ratio Decidendi
The Bankrupt failed to demonstrate sufficient merit in the proposed further appeals and did not provide an indemnity for potential costs; prior appeals were finally disposed of; accordingly the Official Receiver was entitled to refuse consent and the Bankrupt's summons is dismissed.
Court Disposition
The Bankrupt's Summons dated 8 August 2016 is dismissed; costs to be determined.
Orders
- The Bankrupt's Summons dated 8 August 2016 is dismissed.
- Parties to be heard on costs; costs to be determined at further hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCB 402/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO. 402 OF 2012 ____________________________ Re: Chiu Chit (“the Bankrupt”) ____________________________ Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 24 May 2017 Date of Decision: 24 May 2017 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ This is the Bankrupt’s application to reverse the decisions of the Official Receiver (OR), acting as the trustee of her estate, in refusing to consent to the commencement of appeal by the Bankrupt in 3 actions, namely, DCCJ 4041/2007, which was an action between the Bankrupt and the Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd (BOC and 1st Action), HCMP 2334/2009 (2nd Action) and HCMP 584/2010 (3rd Action). I regret to say that this application is badly misconceived. The 2nd and 3rd Actions were actually an appeal to the Court of Appeal (CA) by the Bankrupt against the refusal of the District Court for leave to appeal in the 1st Action. That appeal, as well as the Bankrupt’s applications to the CA and the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) for leave to appeal to the CFA, were all unsuccessful. The Bankrupt says that she is in possession of fresh evidence in support of another round of appeal. Her numerous applications for legal aid for the intended appeal had been turned down. Her application to the Bar Association for free legal advice was rejected on the ground that the 3 Actions had been finally disposed of. For completeness, I should mention, firstly, it was the failure by the Bankrupt to pay the costs of the BOC arising from the 3 Actions which led to her bankruptcy. Secondly, the Bankrupt had also asked the OR for consent to commence fresh proceedings, both civil and criminal, against BOC. That request was also declined. Quite plainly, the Bankrupt is unable to accept the adjudication by the court in the 3 Actions, and she is trying all she can to have another bite at the cherry. In these circumstances, it is plainly right for the OR to require the Bankrupt to satisfy her of the merits of the intended actions, as well as to provide an indemnity for the OR’s costs liability which may arise from such actions, before giving any consent. None of these requirements have been met. I am unable to see any merit in this application, and the Bankrupt’s Summons dated 8 August 2016 must be dismissed. I shall hear the parties on costs. (Anthony Chan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court The Bankrupt appeared in person Ms Lok Pui Man Ophelia of the Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver