RE CHENG KAN YUNG

RE CHENG KAN YUNG

The application was dismissed because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for the five-year delay which amounted to an abuse of process, and because he failed to prove that the 2008 release order was obtained by fraud or by suppression or concealment of material fact as required by section 94(3); many of the complaints had already been litigated, rendering the application vexatious.

Citation
RE CHENG KAN YUNG
Parties
Debtor: Cheng Kan Yung; Trustees: Joint and Several Trustees of the Bankruptcy; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 2014
Case Number
HCB7482/2003
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings (application Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance) / Application Under Section 94(3) to Revoke Release of Trustees (heard in Chambers; Decision)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Trustees' Release, Abuse of Process, Delay in Bringing Application, Fraud and Suppression of Material Fact, Res Judicata/previous Litigation
Source Language
ET
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Costs Revocation of Trustees' Release Abuse of Process Delay in Bringing Application Fraud and Suppression of Material Fact Res Judicata/previous Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheng Kan Yung

Debtor

Joint and Several Trustees of the Bankruptcy

Trustees

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceedings (application Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance) / Application Under Section 94(3) to Revoke Release of Trustees (heard in Chambers; Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the release order dated 18 September 2008 should be revoked under section 94(3) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the application is barred as an abuse of process due to inordinate delay
  3. 3 Whether fraud or suppression or concealment of material fact has been established

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for the five-year delay which amounted to an abuse of process, and because he failed to prove that the 2008 release order was obtained by fraud or by suppression or concealment of material fact as required by section 94(3); many of the complaints had already been litigated, rendering the application vexatious.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded against Cheng Kan Yung in favour of the Trustees and the Official Receiver; costs to be taxed if not agreed