RE LEE PRISCILLA HWANG

RE LEE PRISCILLA HWANG

The court held the debtors' proposal was too uncertain and conditional and did not amount to an offer which, if accepted, would properly lead to dismissal; the petitioner’s refusal to accept the proposal was within the range of reasonable responses of a hypothetical creditor and the debtors had not given full and frank disclosure, therefore s.6D(3) did not require dismissal and bankruptcy orders were appropriate.

Citation
RE LEE PRISCILLA HWANG
Parties
Petitioner: Winchesto Finance Company Limited; Debtor: Lee Priscilla Hwang; Debtor: Lee Raymond Cho-Min; Official Receiver: Official Receiver (Mr Benny Cheng)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 September 2009
Case Number
HCB7452/2009
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment and Reasons Handed Down
Outcome
Bankruptcy orders made against both debtors; petitions granted
Legal Topics
S.6 D(3) Refusal to Accept Offer to Compound, Offer to Compound, Reasonableness of Creditor Refusal, Full and Frank Disclosure, Default Interest, Costs
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure S.6 D(3) Refusal to Accept Offer to Compound Offer to Compound Reasonableness of Creditor Refusal Full and Frank Disclosure Default Interest +1 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winchesto Finance Company Limited

Petitioner

Lee Priscilla Hwang

Debtor

Lee Raymond Cho-Min

Debtor

Official Receiver (Mr Benny Cheng)

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment and Reasons Handed Down

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debtors made a valid offer to compound under s.6D(3)
  2. 2 Whether the petitioning creditor unreasonably refused the offer
  3. 3 Whether the debtor made full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the debtors' proposal was too uncertain and conditional and did not amount to an offer which, if accepted, would properly lead to dismissal; the petitioner’s refusal to accept the proposal was within the range of reasonable responses of a hypothetical creditor and the debtors had not given full and frank disclosure, therefore s.6D(3) did not require dismissal and bankruptcy orders were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Bankruptcy orders made against both debtors; petitions granted

Orders

  • Usual bankruptcy orders made in respect of both petitions
  • Costs awarded to the petitioner