Re Statutory Demand served by Bangkok Bank Public Co. Ltd.

Re Statutory Demand served by Bangkok Bank Public Co. Ltd.

The application to set aside the statutory demand is dismissed because absence of domicile, residence or carrying on business in Hong Kong is not a ground to set aside a statutory demand where jurisdiction can be founded on the debtor's presence in Hong Kong on the day the petition is presented under s4(1)(b); Rule 44 was not contravened because the interest was calculated according to served Order 14 judgments; and disputes on liability should have been raised in the Order 14 proceedings.

Citation
Re Statutory Demand served by Bangkok Bank Public Co. Ltd.
Parties
Debtor (applicant): Yothin Damnerncharnwanit; Creditor (respondent): Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 January 2000
Case Number
HCSD39/1999
Procedural Posture
Statutory Demand / Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand Under Bankruptcy Rules R48 (decision in Chambers)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Service, Domicile and Residence, Carrying on Business, Interest Calculation, Rule 44 Bankruptcy Rules, Rule 48 Bankruptcy Rules, Section 4(1)(b) Bankruptcy Ordinance, Order 14 Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Statutory Demand Service Domicile and Residence Carrying on Business +5 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yothin Damnerncharnwanit

Debtor (applicant)

Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited

Creditor (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Statutory Demand / Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand Under Bankruptcy Rules R48 (decision in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demand should be set aside for want of jurisdiction because the debtor is not domiciled, resident or carrying on business in Hong Kong
  2. 2 Whether the Statutory Demand complied with Rule 44 as to disclosure and calculation of interest
  3. 3 Whether disputes as to liability could be raised after Order 14 proceedings that produced judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the statutory demand is dismissed because absence of domicile, residence or carrying on business in Hong Kong is not a ground to set aside a statutory demand where jurisdiction can be founded on the debtor's presence in Hong Kong on the day the petition is presented under s4(1)(b); Rule 44 was not contravened because the interest was calculated according to served Order 14 judgments; and disputes on liability should have been raised in the Order 14 proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside the statutory demand dismissed