RE CHOY BING WING

RE CHOY BING WING

The appeal was dismissed because the Master’s order of 2 August 2013 was administrative and procedural, not a merits decision; it properly directed adjournment for argument so that jurisdictional and substantive issues would be ventilated at the substantive hearing, and there was no merit to the contention that Order 50 could not be invoked in the context of regulating the hearing, therefore the appellant's challenge failed and costs were awarded to the judgment creditor.

Citation
RE CHOY BING WING
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Director of Housing Department of the Government of the HKSAR; Judgment Debtor: Choy Bing Wing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 October 2013
Case Number
HCB12343/2009
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Interlocutory Appeal Against Directions Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Order 50 Rules of the High Court, Adjournment, Jurisdictional Challenge, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Enforcement Property Costs Charging Order Order 50 Rules of the High Court Adjournment +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Housing Department of the Government of the HKSAR

Judgment Creditor

Choy Bing Wing

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Interlocutory Appeal Against Directions Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Master Lo's order of directions to adjourn for argument was unlawful or beyond jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether Order 50 of the Rules of the High Court can be invoked in bankruptcy proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's challenge required substantive determination at interlocutory stage

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Master’s order of 2 August 2013 was administrative and procedural, not a merits decision; it properly directed adjournment for argument so that jurisdictional and substantive issues would be ventilated at the substantive hearing, and there was no merit to the contention that Order 50 could not be invoked in the context of regulating the hearing, therefore the appellant's challenge failed and costs were awarded to the judgment creditor.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Master K Lo's order of 2 August 2013 upheld
  • Costs to judgment creditor HK$17,678, summarily assessed