Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Objection to discharge

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2020

RE FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHUM WAN MAN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1720
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1536/2015

The court held that s30A(6) requires notification and the application under s30A(3) to be made not less than 14 days before the end of the relevant period (thus the Objection Summons was issued late), the court has power under s100(4) to extend time in principle but declined to exercise that discretion where the Objection Summons both breached the statutory timing and relied on grounds not stated in the Form 82; accordingly the interim suspension was discharged and the objection dismissed.
27 Nov 2008

RE LI NGAI

Citation

RE LI NGAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB23961/2002

The application to object to discharge was dismissed because the creditor failed to prove any relied grounds on the evidence: the documents produced were not shown to be forged or false; Mr. Li's activities were plausibly as representative of a municipal government and not trading in his own account; the understatement in the Statement of Affairs was an admitted inadvertent error; the Official Receiver did not object and had not shown prejudice to creditors; and the creditor's delay and apparent fishing expedition did not justify denying automatic discharge.
23 Oct 2007

FRED LEE v. LEUNG SUI SUM

Citation

FRED LEE v. LEUNG SUI SUM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV31/2007

The appeals were dismissed because the judge's case management order remitting the trustee's objection summonses and joint conditional discharge applications to the Master was proper, made in the public interest, and not a proper subject of appeal given concessions below; the trustee failed to explain his volte face in withdrawing objections (raising public interest concerns), and the judge correctly held that conditioning discharge on contributions to the trustee's costs is outside s30A(9), warranting deprivation of costs and refusal to allow recovery from the estates.
9 Oct 2007

FRED LEE, TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF PANG LAI FAI WILLY, A BANKRUPT v. PANG LAI FAI WILLY

Citation

FRED LEE, TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF PANG LAI FAI WILLY, A BANKRUPT v. PANG LAI FAI WILLY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB9850/2002

The trustee failed to make proper and reasonable investigations (did not interview the bankrupt or enquire with banks/Official Receiver) before applying to object to automatic discharge; accordingly the trustee's costs, including the hearing costs, are disallowed from the bankrupt's estate.
9 Jan 2007

FRED LEE v. LEE YUK MAN

Citation

FRED LEE v. LEE YUK MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB9461/2002

The court held that s30A(9) can be read broadly to permit the court to grant a discharge subject to conditions in circumstances arising under s30A(3) (suspension for objection) or s30A(7) (lifting/shortening suspension), because that construction gives effect to the statutory wording and purpose. However, the power to impose continued contribution conditions must be exercised sparingly, on full material and judicial scrutiny (analogous to income payments orders), and the mechanism of mass objection summonses followed by consent withdrawals risks abuse. On the facts the Judge declined to grant…
9 Jan 2007

FRED LEE v. LEUNG SUI SUM

Citation

FRED LEE v. LEUNG SUI SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8989/2002

The court held that s30A(9) can be applied broadly so that a discharge under section 30A may be granted subject to conditions even in the automatic discharge context (including where a trustee has objected and then seeks to withdraw the objection on terms); however the power is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly and judicially with full disclosure and appropriate notice to creditors; the trustee's practice of issuing numerous objections and using withdrawal by consent as leverage was criticised and the specific consent applications were not granted but remitted to the Master for fu…
10 Oct 2005

RE LEUNG YAT TUNG

Citation

RE LEUNG YAT TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2019/2000

The Petitioning Creditor may be permitted to have its affirmation relied upon in the Official Receiver's summons but only to the extent of the two grounds pursued by the Official Receiver; the court has no jurisdiction to entertain or waive the Petitioning Creditor's separate, late application or its additional grounds because failure to make the statutory application under s.30A(6) BO is not a mere formal irregularity and engages a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction.
10 Dec 2002

RE CHEN MIAUW SHEN JAMES

Citation

RE CHEN MIAUW SHEN JAMES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB809/1998

The court found the bankrupt's explanations contradictory and inconsistent with third parties and documentary evidence, constituting deliberate concealment and unsatisfactory conduct under section 30A(4)(d); therefore the automatic discharge was properly suspended and, in the exercise of the court's discretion, suspended for four years from 8 September 2002.
16 May 2002

Re Choi Sze Fai

Citation

Re Choi Sze Fai
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1276/1997

Master Wong found on the evidence that Mr. Choi failed to co-operate and demonstrated unsatisfactory conduct (misdescription of property interest, failure to discharge encumbrances and orders on title, commencing proceedings without informing the Official Receiver, evasive and discourteous conduct) and that the Official Receiver's objection under s30A(4)(c) and (d) was therefore valid; exercising discretion and allowing a one-year reduction for the Official Receiver's delay, the court suspended automatic discharge for three years from 14 April 2002 and ordered no costs (order nisi to be made…
28 May 1999

Re: Hui Hing Kwok Bankrupt and Ex Parte : The Official Receiver

Citation

Re: Hui Hing Kwok Bankrupt and Ex Parte : The Official Receiver
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB871/1994

Ground (d) (unsatisfactory conduct) not made out on the facts because the passport use was adequately explained and there was insufficient proof of intent to deceive; ground (g) (conviction under s131(a)) was established but the court declined to exercise its discretion to suspend the automatic discharge because the bankrupt had been punished (suspended sentences) and suspension would unduly delay rehabilitation; therefore the Official Receiver's application to suspend discharge was refused.