A v. R

A v. R

The stay application was dismissed because the applicant's proposed CFA leave application was misconceived and unlikely to succeed, she failed to show any good reason on the balance of convenience and fairness to justify a stay, the Decision was not a proper subject for stay and the application amounted to an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 398
Parties
Applicant: A; Respondent: R
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Case Number
HCSD24/2022
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Application for Stay of Earlier Decision; Authorisation to Present Bankruptcy Petition; Bankruptcy Hearing Fixed for 21 February 2023
Outcome
Summons for stay dismissed; respondent authorised to present bankruptcy petition; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Stay of Proceedings, Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal, Costs, Case Management
Source Language
en
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Appeals Statutory Demand Stay of Proceedings Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal Costs Case Management

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Application for Stay of Earlier Decision; Authorisation to Present Bankruptcy Petition; Bankruptcy Hearing Fixed for 21 February 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a temporary stay of the Decision dismissing the application to set aside a statutory demand
  2. 2 Whether to stay the respondent's bankruptcy petition
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's proposed application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is arguable

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was dismissed because the applicant's proposed CFA leave application was misconceived and unlikely to succeed, she failed to show any good reason on the balance of convenience and fairness to justify a stay, the Decision was not a proper subject for stay and the application amounted to an improper attempt to halt the bankruptcy petition; costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Summons for stay dismissed; respondent authorised to present bankruptcy petition; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • Summons dated 9 December 2022 for a stay dismissed
  • Respondent authorised to present a bankruptcy petition against the applicant