FRED LEE v. KO FUNG MING
- Citation
- FRED LEE v. KO FUNG MING
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 13 November 2007
- Posture
- Bankruptcy Proceedings (court of First Instance) / Hearing on Trustees' Objection to Discharge; Application Withdrawn on 15 October 2007
- Case number
- HCB20609/2002
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 13 November 2007
- Posture
- Bankruptcy Proceedings (court of First Instance) / Hearing on Trustees' Objection to Discharge; Application Withdrawn on 15 October 2007
- Case number
- HCB20609/2002
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trustees failed to show they conducted reasonable investigations and therefore did not discharge their quasi-judicial obligations; because their conduct unnecessarily prolonged the bankruptcy, their costs of the application are disallowed from the estate.
Court disposition
Master confirmed order disallowing trustees' costs from the bankrupt's estate and disallowed the trustees' costs for this application.
Orders
- Confirm order disallowing the trustees' costs of their application from the estate.
- Disallow the trustees' costs for the variation/application dated 15 October 2007 from the estate.
- Trustees were previously given leave to make further submissions within 14 days of the earlier order (noted).
02
Material facts
Parties
Fred Lee, trustee of the property of Ko Fung Ming, a bankrupt
Applicant Counsel: Messrs Lee & ChowKo Fung Ming
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 20,609
- Prolongation Months: 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings (court of First Instance) / Hearing on Trustees' Objection to Discharge; Application Withdrawn on 15 October 2007
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether trustees are entitled to recover their costs from the bankrupt's estate
- 02
Whether the trustees discharged their quasi-judicial obligations before bringing the application
- 03
Whether contracting debts while insolvent or making misrepresentations in loan applications constitutes unsatisfactory conduct under section 30A(4)
- 04
Whether costs should be disallowed in whole or only as to certain hearings
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The trustees argued recent authorities support that contracting debts while insolvent or without reasonable belief of repaying and misrepresentations in loan applications amount to unsatisfactory conduct under section 30A(4); the bankrupt did not intend to oppose the trustee's application; and prior authority (Judge Kwan) indicated the trustee was not entitled to recover costs of the hearing before her, so the order should be varied to limit disallowance.
- Respondent
- The respondent (in person) and the Master held that the trustees failed to discharge quasi-judicial obligations, did not conduct reasonable investigation before bringing the application, and unnecessarily prolonged the bankruptcy; therefore costs should be disallowed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Bankruptcy Ordinance s30A(4)
Section 30A(4) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance defines unsatisfactory conduct relevant to discharge applications.
- 02
Case law and Master Lung decision citing Judge Kwan, Judge Lam and Judge Barma
Trustees must discharge quasi-judicial obligations, including conducting reasonable investigations before launching applications; failure permits disallowance of costs from the estate.
- 03
Master Lung decision in Bankruptcy Proceedings No.20609 of 2002
Court exercises a global discretion considering all relevant factors when deciding whether trustees may recover costs from the estate.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trustees failed to show they conducted reasonable investigations and therefore did not discharge their quasi-judicial obligations; because their conduct unnecessarily prolonged the bankruptcy, their costs of the application are disallowed from the estate.
Obiter and limits
- Trustees should raise alleged misconduct with the bankrupt promptly upon discovery rather than waiting until the end of the bankruptcy period.
- Judge Kwan only dealt with costs of the hearing before her and referred certain matters back to the Master for further consideration.
Court disposition
Master confirmed order disallowing trustees' costs from the bankrupt's estate and disallowed the trustees' costs for this application.
- Confirm order disallowing the trustees' costs of their application from the estate.
- Disallow the trustees' costs for the variation/application dated 15 October 2007 from the estate.
- Trustees were previously given leave to make further submissions within 14 days of the earlier order (noted).
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 13 November 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 13 November 2007
bjbj HCB 20609/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO. 20609 OF 2002 _____
BETWEEN Fred Lee, trustee of the property of Ko Fung Ming, a bankrupt Applicant Ko Fung Ming Respondent _____ Coram : Before Master Lung in Chambers Date of Decision (Handed Down): 13 November 2007 _____
REASONS FOR DECISION _____ The application On 15 October 2007, at the hearing of the trustees application objecting to the bankrupt s discharge pursuant to section 30A of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, the trustees withdrew their application. I disallowed the trustees costs from the estate with leave to the trustees to make further submissions within 14 days of my order. By their letter dated 29 October 2007, the trustees asked me to vary my order to the extent that they are not entitled to recover their costs of and occasioned in the hearing for directions before Master Kwang on 27 March 2007 only, which was the hearing for the interim order prolonging the bankruptcy of the bankrupt. Grounds of application The trustees rely on the following grounds in support of their application: (1) recent authorities support their view that contracting debts while being insolvent or without any reasonable belief of being able to repay and misrepresentation in application for loan amount to unsatisfactory conduct under section 30A(4) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; (2) the bankrupt did not intend to oppose the trustee s application; and (3) Judge Kwan in the test case ordered that the trustee was not entitled to recover his costs of and occasioned in respect of the hearing before her out of the bankrupt s estate. Similarly, the order should only have the effect of depriving the
trustees costs of and occasioned in carrying out the investigation into the circumstances in which the alleged misrepresentations were made in the loan application forms. One of the trustees, Mr. Fred Lee, has made similar application in respect of the Bankruptcy Proceedings No.9850 of 2002 for variation of my order disallowing his costs from the estate. I have handed down my Decision refusing his application. For brevity, I shall refer to the guiding principles for costs in paragraph 4-6 of my Decision. In gist, Judge Kwan disallowed the trustee s costs from the estate on the reason that the trustee failed to discharge his quasi-judicial obligations. The bankrupt in this matter should have his bankruptcy order discharged on 31 December 2006 had there not been the trustees application. The bankrupt s bankruptcy order was only discharged on the date of hearing when the trustees withdrew their application on 15 October 2007. The period of the bankruptcy order has been prolonged for more than 10 months. Grounds considered The trustees grounds 1 and 2 can be considered together. It is not necessary to go into detail of the trustees grounds in support of their application as they have withdrawn their application. This court had no opportunity of investigating into those grounds. The trustees chose not to withdraw their application after Judge Kwan s judgment handed down on 9 January
2007. In fact, Judge Lam in Fred Lee v Liu Man Hoo HCB11719of 20002 unreported and Judge Barma in Fred Lee and Chow Wai Lan, Christine v Wong Hing Wah Michael HCB26018 of 2002 commented that the trustees should have raised the misconducts with the bankrupt after they had discovered such misconducts. They should not wait until the end of the bankruptcy order. They have failed to do so here. The question remains: Were they discharging their quasi-judicial obligations? I repeat my reasons in paragraphs 9-11 of my Decision in Bankruptcy Proceedings No.9850 of 2002. I take the view that in exercising my discretion as to the trustees costs from the estate, I should take a global view of the matter, taking into consideration of all relevant factors. I hold that the trustees have not shown to me that they had taken reasonable investigation into the matter before they took out this application. This application has prolonged the bankrupt s bankruptcy order unnecessarily. I do not consider that the trustees have discharged their quasi-judicial obligations. As to the trustees 3rd ground, as I have said in paragraph 8 of my Decision in Bankruptcy Proceedings No.9850 of 2002, the learned Judge had referred the consent summons and the joint application for discharge on conditions back to the Master for further consideration. She therefore only dealt with the costs of the hearing before her. Conclusion For the reasons above, I confirm my order to disallow the trustees costs of their application from the estate. I also disallow their costs for this application from the estate. (K.W. Lung) Master of the High Court Messrs Lee & Chow for Applicant Respondent appear in person -
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V (#p# GvU` GvU` & 6" Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.