RE: CHAN HUNG TUEN and EX-PARTE: CHUN KEEN PROPERTY CONSULTANTS LTD.

RE: CHAN HUNG TUEN and EX-PARTE: CHUN KEEN PROPERTY CONSULTANTS LTD.

Court found statutory demand validly served by substituted service and advertisement because debtor had notice and could have arranged personal service; creditor had reasonable cause to believe realization on charged property would not recover the debt based on director's evidence; oral agreement between landlord and tenant treated the HK$180,000 deposit as forfeited and applied to landlord's loss and costs, so debtor had no set-off; on those findings bankruptcy order was justified but deferred two clear days to permit payment pursuant to debtor's undertaking, with rescission if payment made.

Citation
RE: CHAN HUNG TUEN and EX-PARTE: CHUN KEEN PROPERTY CONSULTANTS LTD.
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Chun Keen Property Consultants Limited; Debtor: Chan Hung Tuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 April 2001
Case Number
HCB2340/2000
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment on Petition (bankruptcy Order Made)
Outcome
Bankruptcy order made (to take effect after two clear days unless full payment made pursuant to undertaking)
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Service of Process, Set Off, Forfeiture, Mesne Profits, Bankruptcy Order, Rule 46(3), Section 9(5) Bankruptcy Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Service of Process Set Off Forfeiture Mesne Profits +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chun Keen Property Consultants Limited

Judgment Creditor

Chan Hung Tuen

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment on Petition (bankruptcy Order Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demand was properly served
  2. 2 Whether creditor had reasonable cause to advertise demand under Rule 46(3)(a) and (b)
  3. 3 Whether debtor is entitled to set-off against the rental deposit

Ratio Decidendi

Court found statutory demand validly served by substituted service and advertisement because debtor had notice and could have arranged personal service; creditor had reasonable cause to believe realization on charged property would not recover the debt based on director's evidence; oral agreement between landlord and tenant treated the HK$180,000 deposit as forfeited and applied to landlord's loss and costs, so debtor had no set-off; on those findings bankruptcy order was justified but deferred two clear days to permit payment pursuant to debtor's undertaking, with rescission if payment made.

Court Disposition

Bankruptcy order made (to take effect after two clear days unless full payment made pursuant to undertaking)

Orders

  • Bankruptcy order against the debtor not to take effect until after two clear days from handing down of judgment and to be rescinded forthwith if full payment of the judgment debt is made pursuant to the undertaking
  • Petitioner's solicitors to inform the Official Receiver in writing on expiry of two clear days whether payment of the judgment debt was received pursuant to the undertaking