RE HOI KUK FA WINNIE

RE HOI KUK FA WINNIE

Even if the debtor did not actually receive the 1995 papers, service was properly effected by attempts at multiple addresses and substituted service with advertisement; the debtor admitted indebtedness, had no meritorious defence and failed to take effective steps to pursue the proposed sale or otherwise avoid enforcement; the bank was entitled to enforce its security and refuse instalment repayment — therefore the application to set aside the order was dismissed.

Citation
RE HOI KUK FA WINNIE
Parties
Judgment Debtor: Choi Kuk Fa Winnie; Judgment Creditor: Kwong On Bank Limited; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 March 1998
Case Number
HCB802/1997
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy (court of First Instance) / Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Order — Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs to follow the event.
Legal Topics
Set Aside Order, Substituted Service, Guarantor Liability, Enforcement of Security, Possession, Sale of Secured Property, Costs
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Set Aside Order Substituted Service Guarantor Liability +4 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Choi Kuk Fa Winnie

Judgment Debtor

Kwong On Bank Limited

Judgment Creditor

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy (court of First Instance) / Application to Set Aside Bankruptcy Order — Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankruptcy order should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the debtor had proper notice of earlier proceedings
  3. 3 Whether substituted service and advertisement constituted valid service

Ratio Decidendi

Even if the debtor did not actually receive the 1995 papers, service was properly effected by attempts at multiple addresses and substituted service with advertisement; the debtor admitted indebtedness, had no meritorious defence and failed to take effective steps to pursue the proposed sale or otherwise avoid enforcement; the bank was entitled to enforce its security and refuse instalment repayment — therefore the application to set aside the order was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs to follow the event.

Orders

  • Application to set aside the order of Master Jennings dated 15 November 1995 dismissed
  • Costs to follow the event