有關LEUNG OI FONG的事宜

有關LEUNG OI FONG的事宜

The s.33(1) application was dismissed because the matters relied on by the debtor had already been fully considered and rejected on appeal; the appeal judgment is final and binding and did not identify any legal error by the trial judge or material mistake of fact; the debtor has not paid or secured the proved...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2705
Parties
Debtor: LEUNG OI FONG; Petitioner: WEALTHY CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED; Official Receiver (trustee): Director of the Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Case Number
HCB4409/2021
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance / Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Order Under Section 33 (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application to set aside the bankruptcy order dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Bankruptcy Order (s.33), Res Judicata/finality of Appeals, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall), Official Receiver Functions (s.83)
Source Language
ch
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Appeal Setting Aside Bankruptcy Order (s.33) Res Judicata/finality of Appeals Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall) Official Receiver Functions (s.83)

Source-derived case record

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEUNG OI FONG

Debtor

WEALTHY CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED

Petitioner

Director of the Official Receiver

Official Receiver (trustee)

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance / Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Order Under Section 33 (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.33(1)(a) applies because the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made
  2. 2 Whether s.33(1)(b) applies because proved debts and costs have been paid or secured to the court's satisfaction
  3. 3 Whether the debtor can re-litigate errors already rejected on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The s.33(1) application was dismissed because the matters relied on by the debtor had already been fully considered and rejected on appeal; the appeal judgment is final and binding and did not identify any legal error by the trial judge or material mistake of fact; the debtor has not paid or secured the proved debts; accordingly neither s.33(1)(a) nor s.33(1)(b) is satisfied and the summons must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the bankruptcy order dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed the 14.5.2024 summons seeking to set aside the bankruptcy order
  • Debtor to pay the petitioner's costs of the application to be paid out of the bankruptcy estate; amount to be assessed by the assessing officer if not agreed