13 May 2002
The court ordered bankruptcy against each debtor because the debt, even on the debtors' favorable calculations, exceeded the statutory bankruptcy threshold and the petitioner's refusal of the settlement offer was within the range of reasonable conduct given the debtors' history of defaults and prior receiving order/rescission.
2 May 2000
The Registrar's order was correct: s.35 permits set-off of the damages awarded in the 2nd defamation action because Next's contingent liability to pay those damages arose before the receiving order and therefore constituted 'mutual dealings'; the applicant's ten-month, inexcusable delay and absence of a real prospect of success justified refusal of leave to appeal out of time.
4 Jun 1998
The appeal was dismissed because it was filed out of time and because the substantive complaints related exclusively to earlier libel proceedings and therefore could not be used to impeach the Receiving Order; alleged perjury was not established and name corrections did not alter identity.
10 Jul 1996
The Receiving Order was set aside because the evidence established that the debtor was not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong nor had a dwelling house in the year before presentation of the petition, rendering the petition falsely based; consequently the Receiving Order and adjudication were discharged and costs were awarded against the petitioning creditor, and the court required inquiry into the Official Receiver's use of the term 'abscond'.
16 Feb 1993
The Court held that Master Cannon should have granted an extension of time when ordering substituted service; the Court exercised its power under r.204 to extend the time for service of the bankruptcy notice, and allowed the appeal, making a Receiving Order against the debtor.
4 Nov 1992
Substituted service ordered by the Master was properly executed and complied with; inclusion of the creditor's solicitor as agent on the bankruptcy notice is permitted by s.4 and the prescribed form; the judgment recitals met s.3(1)(g); however the petitioner failed to prove Mr. Fu's domicile in Hong Kong so the petition against him must be dismissed, whereas there was no contest to the petition against Mr. Li and a receiving order should be granted in the terms sought.
4 Nov 1992
Substituted service by post to the business address and advertisement was properly ordered and complied with and was not invalidated by inclusion of the petitioner's solicitor as agent under s.4; the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving Fu Wai Loi was domiciled in Hong Kong so the petition against him must be dismissed; there was no contest as to Li Yan Chung and a receiving order was made against him.
22 Jun 1992
The motion to rescind the receiving order was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish lack of service or any valid ground to rescind; the transfer did not demonstrably discharge the debt and no proper basis for adjournment existed, so the respondents were entitled to dismissal with costs.
24 Apr 1992
A receiving order was made because the debtor had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to comply with the bankruptcy notice, the debt was undisputed, and the limited stay granted in related proceedings did not oust the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction nor would it materially reduce the debt; therefore the court exercised its discretion under s.9(2) to make the receiving order.
31 Jul 1991
The court held that material obtained under Order 49B and by discovery may, in the court's discretion, be used to prove a bankruptcy petition; the respondents satisfied the court that the prohibition order was within s21B and not improperly obtained; the Murjanis failed to establish a genuine, quantifiable cross-demand equal to or exceeding the judgment debt; accordingly the June motion and B.K. Murjani's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice were dismissed and the petition was allowed to proceed.