IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER
The summons was dismissed because the trustees failed to establish a reasonable evidential foundation that the funding arrangements and documents sought related to the bankrupt or his dealings such as to justify orders under s29; the liquidators' sworn denials supported by corporate documents and incumbency registers rebutted the trustees' speculative inferences, and the court had no jurisdiction to order the alternative affidavit relief sought outside s29(1A).
- Citation
- [2020] HKCFI 578
- Parties
- Applicant Joint and Several Trustee in Bankruptcy: Ip Pui Lam Arthur; Applicant Joint and Several Trustee in Bankruptcy: Ip Pui Sum; Respondent Joint and Several Liquidator of Asia Pac Infrastructure Development Ltd: Alan Chung Wah Tang; Respondent Joint and Several Liquidator of Asia Pac Infrastructure Development Ltd: Hou Chung Man; Bankrupt: Ho Yuk Wah David
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 8 April 2020
- Case Number
- HCB3819/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy Proceedings / Summons Under Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (production/examination Application) — Decision in Chambers
- Outcome
- Summons dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Section 29 Bankruptcy Ordinance, Production and Examination Orders, Trustees' Investigatory Powers, Litigation Finance, Costs Assessment
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ip Pui Lam Arthur
Applicant Joint and Several Trustee in Bankruptcy
Ip Pui Sum
Applicant Joint and Several Trustee in Bankruptcy
Alan Chung Wah Tang
Respondent Joint and Several Liquidator of Asia Pac Infrastructure Development Ltd
Hou Chung Man
Respondent Joint and Several Liquidator of Asia Pac Infrastructure Development Ltd
Ho Yuk Wah David
Bankrupt
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Summons Under Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (production/examination Application) — Decision in Chambers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether documents and information sought from liquidators related to the bankrupt, his dealings or property under s29
- 2 Whether the trustees established a prima facie basis that the liquidators or third party funders were able to give relevant information
- 3 Whether the court has power to order affidavits outside s29(1A)
Ratio Decidendi
The summons was dismissed because the trustees failed to establish a reasonable evidential foundation that the funding arrangements and documents sought related to the bankrupt or his dealings such as to justify orders under s29; the liquidators' sworn denials supported by corporate documents and incumbency registers rebutted the trustees' speculative inferences, and the court had no jurisdiction to order the alternative affidavit relief sought outside s29(1A).
Court Disposition
Summons dismissed
Orders
- Summons dismissed
- Costs of the adjourned 12 July 2018 hearing of HK$200,000 awarded to the Liquidators (summary assessment)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment