RE CHANG HYUN CHI

RE CHANG HYUN CHI

Section 30A(10)(a) does not contravene the Basic Law or the Bill of Rights because its limited, one-off application, the likely substantial adverse effect of pre-commencement absence on estate administration, the relative ease by which a bankrupt can comply, and supporting empirical data render the restriction proportionate; furthermore s29 remains exercisable after discharge (supported by s30A(8) and established authority), therefore the bankrupt's application was dismissed.

Citation
RE CHANG HYUN CHI
Parties
Bankrupt/applicant: Chang Hyun Chi; Trustees/respondents: Joint and Several Trustees in Bankruptcy of the bankrupt; Official Receiver/respondent: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 May 2013
Case Number
HCB5227/2006
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Hearing and Decision on Application for Automatic Discharge and Related Declarations
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Automatic Discharge, Constitutionality Challenge, Examination on Oath, Restriction on Freedom of Travel, Post Discharge Duties, Costs
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Law Constitutional Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Automatic Discharge Constitutionality Challenge Examination on Oath Restriction on Freedom of Travel +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chang Hyun Chi

Bankrupt/applicant

Joint and Several Trustees in Bankruptcy of the bankrupt

Trustees/respondents

Official Receiver

Official Receiver/respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceedings / Hearing and Decision on Application for Automatic Discharge and Related Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankrupt's bankruptcy was automatically discharged after four years from the bankruptcy order
  2. 2 Whether s 30A(10)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) is unconstitutional for restricting the right to travel and suspending automatic discharge
  3. 3 Whether s 29, Cap 6 (power to summon and examine) remains applicable after automatic discharge

Ratio Decidendi

Section 30A(10)(a) does not contravene the Basic Law or the Bill of Rights because its limited, one-off application, the likely substantial adverse effect of pre-commencement absence on estate administration, the relative ease by which a bankrupt can comply, and supporting empirical data render the restriction proportionate; furthermore s29 remains exercisable after discharge (supported by s30A(8) and established authority), therefore the bankrupt's application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • The stay under the Legal Aid Ordinance was uplifted