Re: PAI CHUNG YING, Judgment Debtor and Ex Parte: SUPER ELECTRIC MOTOR LTD., Judgment Creditor

Re: PAI CHUNG YING, Judgment Debtor and Ex Parte: SUPER ELECTRIC MOTOR LTD., Judgment Creditor

The bankruptcy petition was proved: the statutory demand had not been complied with and the Judgment Debt remained unsatisfied; the alleged set‑offs failed as matters of law or were time‑barred or non‑mutual (only the 1995 dividend was available but was insufficient); the Judgment Debtor failed to prove a reasonable prospect of being able to pay under section 9(3) Bankruptcy Ordinance; accordingly a bankruptcy order was made against the Judgment Debtor.

Citation
Re: PAI CHUNG YING, Judgment Debtor and Ex Parte: SUPER ELECTRIC MOTOR LTD., Judgment Creditor
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Super Electric Motor Limited; Judgment Debtor: Pai Chung Ying
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 October 2001
Case Number
HCB413/2001
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Hearing and Judgment in Court of First Instance
Outcome
Bankruptcy order made against the Judgment Debtor
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Bankruptcy Order, Set Off, Limitation, Res Judicata, Section 9(3) Bankruptcy Ordinance, Charging Order, Dividends, Employee Bonus, Share Allotment/dilution
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Statutory Demand Bankruptcy Order Set Off +7 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Super Electric Motor Limited

Judgment Creditor

Pai Chung Ying

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / Hearing and Judgment in Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judgment Debtor is unable to pay the Judgment Debt following non-compliance with a statutory demand
  2. 2 Whether the Judgment Debtor can set off alleged sums (Trinitrade debt, withheld dividends, unpaid bonus, damages for loss of office) against the Judgment Debt
  3. 3 Whether the Judgment Debtor has a reasonable prospect under section 9(3) Bankruptcy Ordinance of being able to pay the Judgment Debt

Ratio Decidendi

The bankruptcy petition was proved: the statutory demand had not been complied with and the Judgment Debt remained unsatisfied; the alleged set‑offs failed as matters of law or were time‑barred or non‑mutual (only the 1995 dividend was available but was insufficient); the Judgment Debtor failed to prove a reasonable prospect of being able to pay under section 9(3) Bankruptcy Ordinance; accordingly a bankruptcy order was made against the Judgment Debtor.

Court Disposition

Bankruptcy order made against the Judgment Debtor

Orders

  • Bankruptcy order made against Pai Chung Ying
  • Costs awarded to the Judgment Creditor