RE TANG TIM FOOK

bjbj Ordinance shall cease to run for such period not exceeding four years as the court may think fit ( the Discharge Suspension Application ). That is, they object to the automatic discharge of the Bankrupt from his bankruptcy (which otherwise would have taken place on 22 did not have the money to do so. Therefore, after discussions, the Bankrupt orally agreed that he would sell his beneficial interest in the Property to Tang for HK$400,000, thereby repaying the debt owed to Tang. The Bankrupt handed over the title deeds and executed a power of attorney dated 31 lse but [Tang] in July 2009 . From then on, I do not know nor would care about the legal ownership of the Property nor any subsequent transfer thereto since I cease to have any beneficial interests in any event. He did not sell the Property to Caroline, or receive any money from the sale. The sale was made by Tang. The basis of the Annulment Application is that the Bankrupt to make the repayments, he said that he received assistance from Tang. On their part, the Trustees object to the automatic discharge of the Bankrupt from the bankruptcy by reason of the failure of the Bankrupt to disclose the Property in the list of assets, his unaccepted allegation that he sold the Property to Tang in 2009 (which was not registered in the Land Registry), the sale of the Property to Caroline without the Trustees consent, and his

failure to deliver up the sale proceeds which the Trustees re e Power of Attorney was made to comfort Tang, and did not constitute a transfer of the Property. Caroline is in fact the daughter of Tang. He was told that Tang passed the Property to Caroline but received no cash. That is, there were no sale proceeds. (I note, however, in a letter dated 15 e the proceeds of sale was released to [Tang] . That is, there were indeed proceeds of sale. There is no reason for me to doubt what the handling solicitors said about the transaction.) Crucially, the Bankrupt does not deny what the Trustees allege to have been said by him at the hearing on 20 on are established: In the absence of full findings of fact based on proper evidence and full submissions, and in the light of possible legal consequences including penal ones, I do not want to say anything about the effect, validity or legality of the alleged dealings between the Bankrupt and Tang in 2009. The crucial point is what the Bankrupt himself thinks he was doing in 2009, irrespective of the true effect or validity in law, as the issue is what was the Bankrupt thinking when he did not include the Property in the Statement of Affairs of 12 November 2014, when, as at that date, he was the registered owner of the Property. I reject entirely the evidence of the Bankrupt regarding why he did not disclose the Property or the sale to

Caroline. His original case, in his first affirmation , is that he had sold the beneficial interest in the Property in 2009 to Tang, so as to repay a debt owed to Tang (and he had no money to build the ting house anyway), and so he did not include the Property in his list of assets. (That he only says would sell and not sold in his first affirmation is clearly an unjustified playing of words, and is contradicted by his own statement in the same affirmation that I did not sell the Property to anyone else but [Tang] .) But this case is flatly contradicted by what he is alleged to have said at the hearing on 20 he did not sell or transfer any interest in the Property to Tang. The Bankrupt s case that there was no payment by Caroline was also contradicted by the letter from his solicitors that there were proceeds of sale which were released to Tang, although I accept that the Bankrupt only claims that he was so told by Tang rather than knowing the position personally. In his submissions, Mr the Property. It is, he says, a misperception that the property was legally and beneficially owned by the Debtor . In his oral submissions, he clarifies that by reason of the HK$400,000 consideration and the provision of the Power of Attorney, the Bankrupt ceased to be the beneficial owner of the Property (although he remained the legal owner) as from July 2009. The first (and current) case of

the Bankrupt simply cannot stand with the second case (as stated at the hearing on 20 h2bz hc^% gd2bz {wswlhlaZsZh hZ\# hjBO ~

f! pgWgpPp h5e8 h5e8 hZ\# gd%Hm gd%Hm gd%Hm gd5e8 ululululu h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm hUfz hUfz h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm hUfz h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm gd2HO gd2HO gd2HO gd2HO gd'! gd'! gd%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm h%Hm hUfz r^JA wj]j]j]j]jN? h6z+ gd0' gd0' gd0' gd9!h gd9!h gd2HO gd2HO gd2HO gd2HO h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h6z+ h2HO h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ h6z+ uf_X_K h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO h2HO rnjfj h9!h h5iE h5iE h5iE h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h hQMR h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h h9!h gdOC gd0' h*]/ h*]/ ynf^V hVRZ h2I- h*]/ h,`T hOxW hOxW hOxW gdHBM gdOC gd2HO gdOxW qjcjV h2HO h2HO h2HO hpJ] hpJ] h*]/ hHBM gdDh gdDh gdDh gdDh hpJ] gdDh gdDh h,`T hpJ] gdOxW :p%Hm [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap

xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml 4m1` s\ 9z8 `f&8 pyA) IIQ> jp#jWZCy7 #hWIP w-8:~ 2%wb~ drs/downrev.xmlL 6)i6E @*\YS \DQ, [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml gJs)rL. Vv5S

TA E 2ZCt [ml84; uA~Z LX7Ge \$K/* #HXI drs/downrev.xmlL 6)i6E @*\YS \DQ, [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml 4m1` s\ 9z8 `f&8 pyA) IIQ> jp#jWZCy7 #hWIP w-8:~ 2%wb~ drs/downrev.xmlL 6)i6E @*\YS \DQ, [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml gJs)rL. Vv5S

TA E 2ZCt [ml84; uA~Z LX7Ge \$K/* #HXI drs/downrev.xmlL 6)i6E @*\YS \DQ, [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK vr6x {'"$z

CACV High Court ABC.dot Windows User Microsoft Office Word Judiciary

CACV Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{25589B99-0814-47B2-B472-F324680FE8D2}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8