The Court of First Instance dismissed a stay application and made a bankruptcy order where the debtor had not complied with a payment-into-court condition.
A bankruptcy order was made because the debt rested on a valid and final District Court judgment and the debtor failed to comply with the statutory demand and did not adduce sufficiently precise, believable evidence of a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds; allegations of a corporate connection, structural defects and procedural unfairness were unsubstantiated and did not justify going behind the judgment or resisting the petition.
The court granted bankruptcy orders after rejecting a Money Lenders Ordinance defence and an exclusive jurisdiction clause point as unarguable and frivolous.
The court made a usual bankruptcy order after rejecting the debtor’s late oral-agreement defence and finding no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds.
The debt is founded on valid and enforceable court orders; the debtor did not comply with the statutory demand, failed to show a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or provide credible evidence to impugn the judgments, and the debtor's appeals were dismissed; accordingly a bankruptcy order was proper.
The Court of Appeal allowed appeals in a winding-up dispute, holding the second Yung Kee core requirement was met and ordering substitution of the petitioner and winding up.
The Court dismissed an amended winding-up petition after finding bona fide disputes on substantial ground as to whether three loan agreements were sham arrangements.
The Court of First Instance granted a bankruptcy order against the debtor after finding no bona fide dispute and no evidence that the judgment debt was secured.