In re WU KIT PING STELLA t/a LEE YUEN ELECTRICAL CO.

In re WU KIT PING STELLA t/a LEE YUEN ELECTRICAL CO.

The applicant does not qualify for priority under s.38(5B) because incurring litigation costs to set aside a charging order does not amount to "payment of monies" protecting or preserving assets; s.97(1) does not authorize the court to create priorities not provided by the Bankruptcy Ordinance or the law; the court's inherent jurisdiction likewise cannot be used to confer such a priority; therefore the application for priority is dismissed.

Citation
In re WU KIT PING STELLA t/a LEE YUEN ELECTRICAL CO.
Parties
Creditor/applicant: GOLAM ELECTRICAL COMPANY LIMITED; Bankrupt: WU KIT PING STELLA trading as LEE YUEN ELECTRICAL CO.; Respondent: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 November 1993
Case Number
HCB21/1993
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application for Priority Payment / Hearing in Chambers on Application Under S.38(5 B) and S.97 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Priority of Creditors, Section 38(5 B), Section 97(1), Inherent Jurisdiction, Costs, Set Aside Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure Charging Order Priority of Creditors Section 38(5 B) Section 97(1) Inherent Jurisdiction +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GOLAM ELECTRICAL COMPANY LIMITED

Creditor/applicant

WU KIT PING STELLA trading as LEE YUEN ELECTRICAL CO.

Bankrupt

Official Receiver

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application for Priority Payment / Hearing in Chambers on Application Under S.38(5 B) and S.97 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to priority under s.38(5B) for protecting or preserving assets by payment of monies
  2. 2 Whether legal costs incurred in setting aside a charging order constitute "payment of monies" under s.38(5B)
  3. 3 Whether s.97(1) empowers the court to create a priority not provided by the Bankruptcy Ordinance or the law

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant does not qualify for priority under s.38(5B) because incurring litigation costs to set aside a charging order does not amount to "payment of monies" protecting or preserving assets; s.97(1) does not authorize the court to create priorities not provided by the Bankruptcy Ordinance or the law; the court's inherent jurisdiction likewise cannot be used to confer such a priority; therefore the application for priority is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order as to costs