RE LEE ON WAI

RE LEE ON WAI

The petitioners were entitled to a usual bankruptcy order because the debtor failed to file the mandatory Notice under rule 68 and therefore the petition could be treated as uncontested, the matters raised had been finally determined in earlier proceedings and were barred by res judicata/issue estoppel (Turner principle), service of the petition on the debtor on 25 July 2025 complied with statutory service rules, and the alleged material change of circumstances was speculative and insufficient to justify reopening or adjournment.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3764
Parties
1st Petitioner: ATHORA LUX INVEST S.C.SP. - LOAN ORIGINATION; 2nd Petitioner: APOLLO CREDIT FUNDS ICAV; Debtor: Lee On Wai; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 August 2025
Case Number
HCB3359/2025
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment and Reasons for Usual Bankruptcy Order
Outcome
Usual bankruptcy order made against the debtor Lee On Wai.
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Setting Aside, Service of Process, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Notice of Intention to Show Cause, Extension of Time, Turner Principle
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Contract Property/mortgage Enforcement Statutory Demand Setting Aside Service of Process Res Judicata +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ATHORA LUX INVEST S.C.SP. - LOAN ORIGINATION

1st Petitioner

APOLLO CREDIT FUNDS ICAV

2nd Petitioner

Lee On Wai

Debtor

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / Judgment and Reasons for Usual Bankruptcy Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demands should be set aside or otherwise defended at petition stage after dismissal of the setting aside applications
  2. 2 Whether the debtor complied with rule 68 (Notice of Intention to Show Cause) and consequences of non‑compliance
  3. 3 Whether service requirements (PD 3.1 §3.3 and Rules/O9r4(2)) were complied with

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners were entitled to a usual bankruptcy order because the debtor failed to file the mandatory Notice under rule 68 and therefore the petition could be treated as uncontested, the matters raised had been finally determined in earlier proceedings and were barred by res judicata/issue estoppel (Turner principle), service of the petition on the debtor on 25 July 2025 complied with statutory service rules, and the alleged material change of circumstances was speculative and insufficient to justify reopening or adjournment.

Court Disposition

Usual bankruptcy order made against the debtor Lee On Wai.

Orders

  • Usual bankruptcy order made against Lee On Wai