OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. CHU CHI HO IAN
The court exercised its case management discretion to dismiss the summonses because it would not order disclosure of the Funding Agreement due to its confidentiality clause and because permitting the applicants to appear without disclosure would serve no useful purpose, particularly where the applicants are the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. CHU CHI HO IAN
- Parties
- Joint and Several Trustee: Osman Mohammed Arab; Joint and Several Trustee: Wong Kwok Keung; Respondent (bankrupt): Chu Chi Ho Ian; Applicant (seeking Leave to Be Heard): Dragonite Resources Limited; Applicant (seeking Leave to Be Heard): Sun Willie Financing Limited; Applicant (seeking Leave to Be Heard): Forefront Finance Company Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 4 December 2014
- Case Number
- HCB4344/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy Proceedings / Application for Leave to Be Heard at Trustees' Section 82(3) Directions (sanction Application) in Chambers
- Outcome
- Summonses dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Trustee Directions Under Section 82(3), Disclosure of Funding Agreements, Right to Be Heard, Intervention by Investigation Subjects, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Osman Mohammed Arab
Joint and Several Trustee
Wong Kwok Keung
Joint and Several Trustee
Chu Chi Ho Ian
Respondent (bankrupt)
Dragonite Resources Limited
Applicant (seeking Leave to Be Heard)
Sun Willie Financing Limited
Applicant (seeking Leave to Be Heard)
Forefront Finance Company Limited
Applicant (seeking Leave to Be Heard)
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Application for Leave to Be Heard at Trustees' Section 82(3) Directions (sanction Application) in Chambers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether third parties should be allowed to be heard at a trustees' section 82(3) directions application
- 2 Whether the trustees should be ordered to disclose the Funding Agreement to the applicants
- 3 Whether it is appropriate for parties who are subjects of the trustees' investigation to appear at the Sanction Application
Ratio Decidendi
The court exercised its case management discretion to dismiss the summonses because it would not order disclosure of the Funding Agreement due to its confidentiality clause and because permitting the applicants to appear without disclosure would serve no useful purpose, particularly where the applicants are the subject of the trustees' investigation.
Court Disposition
Summonses dismissed
Orders
- Summonses dated 10 and 12 November 2014 dismissed
- No order for disclosure of the Funding Agreement
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCB 4344/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 4344 OF 2012 ______________________ BETWEEN OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB and WONG KWOK KEUNG Applicants Joint and Several Trustees of the Property of CHU CHI HO IAN also known as CHU CHI HO (a Bankrupt) and CHU CHI HO IAN (a Bankrupt) Respondent ____________ Before: Hon Ng J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 4 December 2014 Date of Decision: 4 December 2014 ________________ D E C I S I O N ________________ There are two applications before this court by (1) Sun Willie Financing Limited and Dragonite Resources Limited and (2) Forefront Finance Company Limited (“Applicants”) for leave to be heard at the socalled “Sanction Application” by the trustees in bankruptcy of Chu Chi Ho Ian (“Trustees”). Under section 82(3) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, the Trustees may apply to the court for directions in relation to any particular matter arising under the bankruptcy. It is common practice for trustees to apply for such directions on an ex parte basis, sometimes simply in writing, as observed by Harris J in re Cyberworks Audio Video Technology Limited [2010] 2 HKLRD 1137. As I see it, whether or not the Applicants should be allowed to be heard when the Trustees make such an application is essentially a matter of case management within the discretion of the court. Despite the able arguments of counsel for the Applicants, I am not satisfied that it is right to order the Trustees to disclose the Funding Agreement to them by reason of the confidentiality clause contained in it and I am not satisfied that any useful purpose will be served by allowing the three Applicants to appear in the Sanction Application without ordering the Trustees to disclose the Funding Agreement to them. Further, I am not satisfied that it is right for the Applicants to even appear at the Sanction Application when the Trustees will have to explain to the court details of the investigation which they intend to pursue for which funding is required, when it is no secret that the Applicants are the subject of their investigation. In the exercise of my discretion, I hereby dismiss the Summonses dated 10 and 12 November 2014 by the Applicants, with costs to the Trustees. (Peter Ng) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Anthony Hill, of Tanner De Witt, for the Joint and Several Trustees of the property of CHU CHI HO IAN also known as CHU CHI HO (a Bankrupt) Mr Adrian Bell SC and Mr Minju Kim, instructed by Lam & Co, for Dragonite Resources Limited and Sun Willie Financing Limited Mr Tony Ko, instructed by Ching & Solicitors, for Forefront Finance Company Limited