WAH TAT FOUNDATION & ENGINEERING LTD v. KAM KIN BUN

WAH TAT FOUNDATION & ENGINEERING LTD v. KAM KIN BUN

The applications to set aside were dismissed because the Default Judgment was a regular judgment properly served; applicants failed to demonstrate a monetary cross-demand equal to the debt; they did not produce cogent evidence that the judgment was obtained by fraud or without proper service; issuing statutory demands under s6A(1)(a) did not require leave under Order 81 r5, and no exercise of residual discretion to set aside was justified.

Citation
WAH TAT FOUNDATION & ENGINEERING LTD v. KAM KIN BUN
Parties
Creditor: WAH TAT FOUNDATION & ENGINEERING LIMITED; Debtor: KAM KIN BUN; Debtor: YIP SHIU CHING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 May 2003
Case Number
HCSD5/2003
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment on Application (heard in Chambers)
Outcome
Applications to set aside the statutory demands dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Bankruptcy Petition, Set Aside Application, Service of Process, Winding Up Petition, Judgment Debt
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Bankruptcy Petition Set Aside Application Service of Process +2 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAH TAT FOUNDATION & ENGINEERING LIMITED

Creditor

KAM KIN BUN

Debtor

YIP SHIU CHING

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment on Application (heard in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants have a monetary counterclaim/set-off/cross-demand under Rule 48(5)(a) sufficient to equal or exceed the demanded sum
  2. 2 Whether the debt is disputed on substantial grounds under Rule 48(5)(b) allowing the demand to be set aside
  3. 3 Whether residual discretion under Rule 48(5)(d) to prevent injustice applies

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to set aside were dismissed because the Default Judgment was a regular judgment properly served; applicants failed to demonstrate a monetary cross-demand equal to the debt; they did not produce cogent evidence that the judgment was obtained by fraud or without proper service; issuing statutory demands under s6A(1)(a) did not require leave under Order 81 r5, and no exercise of residual discretion to set aside was justified.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside the statutory demands dismissed

Orders

  • Applications dismissed
  • Costs to be paid by KAM KIN BUN and YIP SHIU CHING forthwith and to be taxed if not agreed