HUI TANG TAT（許騰達)［in the Will called HUI TANT TAT（許騰達）］，the Executor of the Estate of PAO SHUN HING（鮑舜卿）also known as PAO SHUN HING（鮑舜卿），Deceased 對 HUI TING BONG（許定邦）及另一人

HUI TANG TAT（許騰達)［in the Will called HUI TANT TAT（許騰達）］，the Executor of the Estate of PAO SHUN HING（鮑舜卿）also known as PAO SHUN HING（鮑舜卿），Deceased 對 HUI TING BONG（許定邦）及另一人

Because a bankruptcy order vests the bankrupt's litigation rights in the Official Receiver and the Official Receiver refused to continue or assign the litigation rights, the bankrupt (second defendant) lacked standing to pursue the appeal; coupled with the failure to obtain the statutory leave within the 14‑day...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCA 777
Parties
Plaintiff: HUI TANG TAT (Executor of the Estate of PAO SHUN HING); First Defendant: HUI TING BONG; Second Defendant: LIU SEUT FUN
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2021
Case Number
CAMP211/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (application for Permission to Appeal/interlocutory) / Permission to Appeal Application; Interlocutory Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Second defendant's 13 November 2020 summons application struck out for lack of standing and non-compliance with leave/time requirements; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Vesting of Litigation Rights on Bankruptcy, Leave to Appeal, Strike Out of Summons, Time Limits for Appeals
Source Language
ch
Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Appellate Procedure Property Possession/enforcement Vesting of Litigation Rights on Bankruptcy Leave to Appeal Strike Out of Summons Time Limits for Appeals

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HUI TANG TAT (Executor of the Estate of PAO SHUN HING)

Plaintiff

HUI TING BONG

First Defendant

LIU SEUT FUN

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (application for Permission to Appeal/interlocutory) / Permission to Appeal Application; Interlocutory Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether litigation rights vested in the Official Receiver upon the making of the bankruptcy order
  2. 2 Whether the bankrupt (second defendant) retained standing to pursue an appeal or had to have the Official Receiver assign or permit the action to continue
  3. 3 Whether statutory requirements for leave to appeal (and the 14 day time limit) had been complied with

Ratio Decidendi

Because a bankruptcy order vests the bankrupt's litigation rights in the Official Receiver and the Official Receiver refused to continue or assign the litigation rights, the bankrupt (second defendant) lacked standing to pursue the appeal; coupled with the failure to obtain the statutory leave within the 14‑day period required by the Regional Court rules, the summons filed 13 November 2020 must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Second defendant's 13 November 2020 summons application struck out for lack of standing and non-compliance with leave/time requirements; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Strike out the second defendant's 13 November 2020 summons application
  • No order as to costs