RE LAU WAN

RE LAU WAN

The petition was dismissed because it was an action upon the judgment barred by s.4(4) of the Limitation Ordinance and the bank's unilateral set-off did not constitute part payment or an acknowledgment by the debtor that would restart the limitation period under s.23(3) and s.24(2).

Citation
RE LAU WAN
Parties
Petitioner: The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited; Debtor: Lau Wan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Case Number
HCB4136/2012
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition (based on Judgment Debt) / Judgment (petition Dismissed)
Outcome
Petition dismissed as time-barred under s.4(4) of the Limitation Ordinance
Legal Topics
Section 4(4) Limitation Ordinance, Part Payment, Set Off, Enforcement of Judgment, Statutory Demand, Interpretation of Limitation Provisions
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Limitation of Actions Civil Procedure Contract Insolvency Section 4(4) Limitation Ordinance Part Payment Set Off +3 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

Petitioner

Lau Wan

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition (based on Judgment Debt) / Judgment (petition Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankruptcy petition is time-barred by s.4(4) of the Limitation Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the bank's unilateral set-off constituted part payment or an acknowledgment by the debtor that restarts the limitation period under s.23(3)
  3. 3 Whether insolvency proceedings based on a judgment constitute an "action upon a judgment" for the purposes of s.4(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was dismissed because it was an action upon the judgment barred by s.4(4) of the Limitation Ordinance and the bank's unilateral set-off did not constitute part payment or an acknowledgment by the debtor that would restart the limitation period under s.23(3) and s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed as time-barred under s.4(4) of the Limitation Ordinance

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Costs to the Debtor to be taxed if not agreed