RE LI TAT KONG

RE LI TAT KONG

Rule 83 could not be relied upon as conferring an independent committal jurisdiction (held not within ambit of rule‑making power); on the evidence the Official Receiver had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Li had refused or wilfully failed to answer questions under s19 or wilfully failed to perform duties under s26; accordingly application for committal dismissed and no contempt found.

Citation
RE LI TAT KONG
Parties
Applicant (official Receiver / Trustee): Official Receiver; Bankrupt / Respondent: Li Tat Kong
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2002
Case Number
HCB741/1995
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy — Committal for Contempt / Application for Committal Hearing (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Application for committal dismissed; Mr Li not found guilty of contempt
Legal Topics
Public Examination, Automatic Discharge, Statement of Affairs, Committal Proceedings, Rule‑making Power (rule 83), Disclosure of Assets, Adjournment Sine Die
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Contempt of Court Administrative Law (ultra Vires) Public Examination Automatic Discharge Statement of Affairs Committal Proceedings +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Official Receiver

Applicant (official Receiver / Trustee)

Li Tat Kong

Bankrupt / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy — Committal for Contempt / Application for Committal Hearing (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether answers given at public examination amounted to refusal to answer under s19 and therefore civil contempt
  2. 2 Whether debtor wilfully failed to perform duties under s26 (inventory, creditors/debtors list, aid realisation) and thus liable for contempt
  3. 3 Whether rule 83 of the Bankruptcy Rules purports to create an independent committal jurisdiction and is intra vires section 113

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 83 could not be relied upon as conferring an independent committal jurisdiction (held not within ambit of rule‑making power); on the evidence the Official Receiver had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Li had refused or wilfully failed to answer questions under s19 or wilfully failed to perform duties under s26; accordingly application for committal dismissed and no contempt found.

Court Disposition

Application for committal dismissed; Mr Li not found guilty of contempt

Orders

  • Rule 83 not relied upon as within rule‑making power (court treated it as ultra vires for present purposes)
  • No finding of contempt under section 19 or section 26 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance