BKR v. BBM

BKR v. BBM

A statutory demand based solely on an unpaid lump sum under a matrimonial order that is not provable in bankruptcy cannot validly support a provable bankruptcy debt in circumstances where there is no other supporting creditor or other provable debt; the court will not in practice make a bankruptcy order on that basis, and the respondent must pay the applicant's costs.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2440
Parties
Applicant: BKR; Respondent: BBM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Case Number
HCSD31/2020
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Decision
Outcome
Statutory demand withdrawn by consent; Court held the statutory demand was not validly issued to support a provable debt and that the respondent should pay the applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Provable Debt, Unpaid Lump Sum Under Matrimonial Order, Variation of Matrimonial Order, Costs
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Family Law Civil Procedure Enforcement Statutory Demand Provable Debt Unpaid Lump Sum Under Matrimonial Order Variation of Matrimonial Order +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BKR

Applicant

BBM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unpaid lump sum under a matrimonial order is provable in bankruptcy
  2. 2 Whether a statutory demand based solely on such an unpaid lump sum can validly support presentation of a bankruptcy petition
  3. 3 Whether the court will in practice make a bankruptcy order on a petition founded on an unprovable debt

Ratio Decidendi

A statutory demand based solely on an unpaid lump sum under a matrimonial order that is not provable in bankruptcy cannot validly support a provable bankruptcy debt in circumstances where there is no other supporting creditor or other provable debt; the court will not in practice make a bankruptcy order on that basis, and the respondent must pay the applicant's costs.

Court Disposition

Statutory demand withdrawn by consent; Court held the statutory demand was not validly issued to support a provable debt and that the respondent should pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

  • Statutory demand withdrawn by consent on 16 June 2021
  • Respondent to pay applicant's costs of the HCSD Proceeding, summarily assessed at HKD 315976