Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Official receiver duties

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2013

RE TSANG WING LAM

Citation

RE TSANG WING LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1203/2013

The stay application was dismissed because the pending appeal was not shown to be bona fide or sufficiently arguable, the bankrupt failed to provide credible evidence of ownership or imminent receipt of sale proceeds of the alleged goods, the bankrupt had not cooperated with the Official Receiver or filed a Statement of Affairs, the bankruptcy order had been gazetted so there were no effective steps to stay, and granting a general stay would prejudice creditors and impede estate administration.
7 Jan 2010

RE HO YING PAT BOBBY

Citation

RE HO YING PAT BOBBY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1946/2009

The application for a stay was refused because section 6(7) of the Legal Practitioners' Ordinance causes the practising certificate to terminate on the grant of a Bankruptcy Order and a temporary stay would not reinstate it; courts do not grant general stays pending appeal that would prejudice creditors; the appellant lacked a real prospect of success; continuation of litigation by the bankrupt pending appeal is not permitted absent exceptional circumstances and indemnity.
28 Dec 2009

RE HO YING PAT BOBBY

Citation

RE HO YING PAT BOBBY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1946/2009

The bankruptcy order was made because the judgment debtor failed to demonstrate that staying the petition was the only rational decision; he did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to show that pursuing the claim against Richards Butler would clearly benefit creditors, and the Official Receiver can assess and pursue the claim after bankruptcy.
16 Sept 2005

RE DAVID C. BUXBAUM

Citation

RE DAVID C. BUXBAUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7637/2004

The summons for a stay was dismissed because the appeal was not shown to be sufficiently arguable to justify a stay; a general stay would prejudice creditors and hamper administration; the specific relief sought (revival of foreign lawyer registration, credit card use and bank account operation) is ineffective or governed by statutory provisions and commercial discretion and therefore not appropriate to be granted by stay.
10 Dec 2004

RE CHU WAI HA

Citation

RE CHU WAI HA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB19401/2003

Section 138 insofar as it empowers the court to order prosecution of bankrupts in respect of public prosecutions is inconsistent with the Basic Law principles of separation of powers and judicial independence because it requires the court to perform a role that properly belongs to the public prosecuting authority; accordingly the application under Section 138 for a public prosecution is dismissed, while the court expresses no concluded view on private prosecutions under Section 138.
23 Nov 2004

RE THE EXPRESS BUILDERS CO LTD (the Company)

Citation

RE THE EXPRESS BUILDERS CO LTD (the Company)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW409/2003

Where the court's taxation process of provisional liquidators' fees was put in train before a s209A(1) conversion order, the court has jurisdiction to complete that assessment rather than permitting withdrawal and deferring assessment to the committee of inspection; s209A/209B are primarily deeming and priority provisions and do not automatically shift assessment of pre-conversion provisional liquidators' fees to the committee; accordingly the court ordered the fee notes to remain in the taxation process and proceeded to finalize assessment if no adequate response received, and awarded costs…
19 Sept 2001

RE KENSLAND REALTY LTD.

Citation

RE KENSLAND REALTY LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW581/2001

The Official Receiver was entitled to vacate the appeal dates to obtain necessary information on the company’s assets, liabilities and the merits and funding of the appeal; given lack of evidence of bad faith, unreasonableness or lack of even-handedness, and that the Official Receiver had taken into account creditors’ interests and the applicant’s position, the court refused to intervene under s200(5); there was no basis to give the alternative direction under s199(3) because the Official Receiver had not refused to consider proceeding and had not yet filed any proposal to vacate.
15 Jul 1999

RE PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RE PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV40/1999

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals: the judge had jurisdiction to direct the Official Receiver to secure assistance, she did not misapply her discretion in ordering a law costs draftsman or in requiring a banker's guarantee for large interim payments, and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting appellate interference with her case-management directions and discretionary orders.
25 Jul 1984

RE FRITH LTD

Citation

RE FRITH LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW278/1983

The examination order of 18 April 1984 was improperly made because the Official Receiver's report did not, on substantial grounds, state an opinion that fraud had been committed by any of the applicants under s222(1); accordingly the order was discharged and the Official Receiver (in his official capacity) was ordered to pay the applicants' costs, but he was not personally liable as he had acted within his statutory duties.