Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Act of bankruptcy

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2024

LIU GUIQIAO v. MAK LOK MAN (also known as MAK LOK MAN MANDY) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1489/2019

The loan was advanced and, upon the borrower's bankruptcy, became immediately due under the Loan Agreement; the Personal Guarantee made the guarantor liable to pay when the debt fell due; the defendants did not attend trial to substantiate defences; therefore judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the loan plus interest and costs.
30 Apr 2008

RE SY CHIN MONG, STEPHEN

Citation

RE SY CHIN MONG, STEPHEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB199/1989

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.
3 May 2002

CHINA EVERBRIGHT HOLDINGS CO. LTD. v. HUNG FUNG HOLDINGS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA EVERBRIGHT HOLDINGS CO. LTD. v. HUNG FUNG HOLDINGS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10150/2000

The application for a stay of execution was dismissed because the Defendants put forward no affidavit of means to justify delay, had not filed a Notice of Appeal or formulated grounds enabling assessment of an appeal, and there were no special circumstances to warrant depriving the successful litigant of the fruits of litigation; any bankruptcy-related relief should be sought from the Bankruptcy Judge.
17 Jun 1997

EX PARTE THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHNNY YIU v. TOPMA (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

EX PARTE THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHNNY YIU v. TOPMA (HONG KONG) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB179/1996

Seizure and retention of the debtor's goods by the Bailiff for more than 21 days (excluding interpleader period) constituted an available act of bankruptcy under s.3(1)(e); notice of that act was imputable to the execution creditor under s.45(1) and, construing s.46(2) purposively, the petition presented in the circumstances operated so that the proceeds of the 29 April 1996 sale (after bailiff costs) are payable to the trustee in bankruptcy together with any accrued interest; the court declined to exercise its discretionary power to set aside the trustee's statutory entitlement in favour of…
24 Apr 1992

RE CHAO SING KUNG

Citation

RE CHAO SING KUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB781/1991

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

RE MOHAN BHAGWANDAS MURJANI

Citation

RE MOHAN BHAGWANDAS MURJANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB808/1990

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.
30 May 1988

RE SARAH TONG KWOK HON WAH

Citation

RE SARAH TONG KWOK HON WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB186/1985

Because service of the bankruptcy notice and petition had been properly proved at the time the receiving order was made and the court therefore had jurisdiction, subsequent discovery that the bankrupt was abroad at the time of posting does not render the proceedings void; absent grounds showing rescission would benefit creditors or that the bankrupt can pay debts, the application to rescind must be dismissed.
17 Jul 1987

DAH SING BANK LTD v. DAYLIGHT INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAH SING BANK LTD v. DAYLIGHT INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV47/1987

The appeal is dismissed: the court applies settled authority (notably Hasluck v. Clark and In re Gould) and holds that an administration order under s.112 does not convert the administrators' notice into an act of bankruptcy for the purposes of s.45; because Daylight's charging order was completed by registration before the administration order and notice, Daylight is entitled to retain the benefit of the execution and the Official Receiver's challenge fails.
26 Mar 1987

DAH SING BANK, LTD v. DAYLIGHT INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAH SING BANK, LTD v. DAYLIGHT INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2746/1986

The court held that the doctrine of relation back applies to a Charging Order Nisi so that the operative date for the charging order (and its registration for s.45 purposes) is the date of the Charging Order Nisi and its registration. Because the Charging Order Nisi was registered on 6 February prior to the bankruptcy notice of 19 February, the 1st Defendant's execution was completed before the act of bankruptcy and the 1st Defendant is entitled to the surplus.
20 Feb 1987

RE GRANDEUR CONSTRUCTION CO

Citation

RE GRANDEUR CONSTRUCTION CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB555/1986

Given evidence that the debtor left Hong Kong for Canada and no practical means existed to serve him personally, and having found the petitioner took all reasonable steps to locate him, substituted service by advertisement in specified Canadian newspapers was a proper exercise of discretion and supported making the receiving order; Master Woolley’s orders for substituted service were upheld and the receiving order was validly made.