Re IP LAM ON

Re IP LAM ON

Adjournment refused as undue delay and prejudice to creditor; statutory demand not set aside because the charged properties are third‑party securities not requiring specification under Rule 44(5), the applicant failed to prove the securities equalled or exceeded the debt on the evidence before the court, and the alleged agreement not to enforce lacked consideration and an arguable defence, therefore creditor entitled to proceed to bankruptcy petition.

Citation
Re IP LAM ON
Parties
Applicant/debtor: Ip Lam On; Respondent/creditor: Respondent Creditor
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 January 2001
Case Number
HCSD11/2000
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Hearing and Decision on Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand and Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Set Aside, Security, Guarantee, Adjournment, Estoppel, Costs, Bankruptcy Petition
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Contract Statutory Demand Set Aside Security Guarantee Adjournment +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ip Lam On

Applicant/debtor

Respondent Creditor

Respondent/creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Hearing and Decision on Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand and Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjournment should be granted to enable the applicant to obtain legal representation
  2. 2 Whether third‑party securities amount to security of the debtor requiring specification under Rule 44(5)
  3. 3 Whether the value of the securities equals or exceeds the debt for the purposes of Rule 48(5)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment refused as undue delay and prejudice to creditor; statutory demand not set aside because the charged properties are third‑party securities not requiring specification under Rule 44(5), the applicant failed to prove the securities equalled or exceeded the debt on the evidence before the court, and the alleged agreement not to enforce lacked consideration and an arguable defence, therefore creditor entitled to proceed to bankruptcy petition.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to adjourn refused; matter to proceed
  • Application to set aside statutory demand dismissed with costs including costs of hearing on 3 November 2000