RE CAO ZHONG

RE CAO ZHONG

Court held it had jurisdiction: debtor was ordinarily resident in Hong Kong during the relevant period and had one or more places of residence in Hong Kong; carrying on business and domicile of choice were not made out. Petitioner discharged its high burden under Rule 46(2) by taking reasonable steps to bring the statutory demand to debtor's attention (service at contractual Hong Kong address, enquiries, advertisement), and reliance on the notice clause was reasonable. Petitioner expressly agreed in the petition to abandon security on bankruptcy, so security did not bar the petition; valuation was a genuine estimate. Debtor failed to show a bona fide dispute to the debt or to establish...

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3143
Parties
Petitioner: Bilistyle Investments Limited; Debtor: Mr Cao Zhong
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Case Number
HCB7887/2020
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment (substantive Hearing)
Outcome
Bankruptcy order made against the Debtor; limited leave to adduce further evidence granted only as to jurisdictional gateways and service of the statutory demand; costs ordered nisi in favour of the Petitioner
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Gateways Under S4, Service of Statutory Demand (rule 46(2)), Security Valuation and Abandonment (s6 B), Bona Fide Dispute to Debt, Non Est Factum, Leave to Adduce Late Evidence
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Contract Law Property/security Jurisdictional Gateways Under S4 Service of Statutory Demand (rule 46(2)) Security Valuation and Abandonment (s6 B) Bona Fide Dispute to Debt +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 6 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bilistyle Investments Limited

Petitioner

Mr Cao Zhong

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment (substantive Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioner satisfied jurisdictional gateways in s4(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether petitioner did all that was reasonable to bring the statutory demand to debtor's attention (Rule 46(2) BR)
  3. 3 Whether the debt was effectively secured and/or rendered petition inappropriate (s6B, Rule 44(5))

Ratio Decidendi

Court held it had jurisdiction: debtor was ordinarily resident in Hong Kong during the relevant period and had one or more places of residence in Hong Kong; carrying on business and domicile of choice were not made out. Petitioner discharged its high burden under Rule 46(2) by taking reasonable steps to bring the statutory demand to debtor's attention (service at contractual Hong Kong address, enquiries, advertisement), and reliance on the notice clause was reasonable. Petitioner expressly agreed in the petition to abandon security on bankruptcy, so security did not bar the petition; valuation was a genuine estimate. Debtor failed to show a bona fide dispute to the debt or to establish...

Court Disposition

Bankruptcy order made against the Debtor; limited leave to adduce further evidence granted only as to jurisdictional gateways and service of the statutory demand; costs ordered nisi in favour of the Petitioner

Orders

  • Leave granted to the Debtor to adduce further evidence limited to paragraphs 5 to 10 of the Cao 3rd Affirmation and relevant exhibits
  • Leave refused for any further additional evidence (including Miao 1st Affirmation and other materials)