30 Apr 2008
The court will set aside the bankruptcy notice dated 25 April 1989 because the judgment debt has been satisfied, no bankruptcy petition was ever presented within the required period so the act of bankruptcy is spent and the notice is defunct and prejudicial to the applicant, and the court has jurisdiction to make the order.
17 Dec 2004
Applicant failed to prove the default judgment was irregular or obtained by fraud and did not take steps to have it set aside; a default judgment remains valid until set aside; given the unexplained delay and absence of indisputable evidence that the HK$70,000 reduced the Applicant's liability, the adjudication ought not to be annulled and the application is dismissed.
30 Jun 1998
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the judge did not err in principle or irrationally exercise his discretion in refusing a stay of execution because actions on cheques are treated as cash transactions and the appellant did not demonstrate exceptional grounds (such as fraud or enforcement‑related prejudice) to justify departing from the usual rule.
30 Jun 1998
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge did not err in refusing to set aside the bankruptcy notice or grant a stay of execution; cheques are treated as cash and the alleged counterclaim or conduct did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required to justify a stay.
17 Mar 1998
The appeal is dismissed because (1) the Court of Appeal's striking out of the notice of appeal was due to the appeal being filed out of time and the appellant's refusal to seek leave, not because of any decisive falsehood by Respondent's counsel; (2) the asserted counterclaim is inadequately pleaded, unsupported by required affidavit evidence, and misconceived because the Bar Council lacks independent legal personality for such a claim and the causes of action lack particulars; and (3) the Basic Law and Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance preserve pre‑handover orders and proceedings, so the cos…
18 Dec 1997
The application was dismissed because Section 3(1)(g) was not satisfied, the counterclaim did not provide a basis for leave to defend or a stay of execution, and no special or exceptional circumstances existed to justify departing from the established rule that cheque-based judgments are not to be stayed.
16 May 1996
Section 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance confines appeals from the Registrar to the Court of Appeal and imposes a 21‑day time limit; therefore Findlay J had no jurisdiction and the appeal to him was a nullity, and the plaintiff's unexplained delay and reliance on solicitor error did not justify extending time; accordingly the applications to extend time and the appeals were dismissed.
6 Mar 1996
Applications dismissed: stay refused; order for substituted service upheld because prompt personal service could not be effected and the Master was entitled to infer evasion or other cause; formal defects did not invalidate the Notice under s.124; Rule 46 protected against any premature act of bankruptcy; cross-claim/set-off did not provide a valid ground to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice because it had been pleaded and related to matters already rejected in the judgment.
6 Mar 1996
The court held the order for substituted service was properly made because prompt personal service could not be effected and the debtor could not be located; formal defects in the notice did not invalidate proceedings under s.124; accordingly the applications to stay execution, to set aside substituted service and to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice were dismissed with costs to the creditor.
7 Dec 1995
The Court allowed the appellant's appeal because the defendant failed to plead and prove fraud or duress to the high standard required to justify setting aside the registration; there was no demonstrated breach of natural justice sufficient to vitiate the foreign summary judgment and no prima facie case meriting an issue to be tried, therefore the setting aside by the judge below was erroneous and is overturned.