24 Jan 2019
The statutory demands sought net unsecured balances and, as a matter of law, third-party security does not render the petitioner a secured creditor under section 2 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; therefore the Debtors had no valid defence and bankruptcy orders were properly made.
7 Nov 2018
After a full trial the counterclaim was dismissed and that dismissal remains effective absent a stay or reversal on appeal; filing an appeal does not automatically stay the judgment; therefore there was no existing counterclaim that equalled or exceeded the statutory demand sums and the application to set aside the SDS failed; appeal dismissed with costs.
28 Mar 2003
Court has jurisdiction under s.100(1) to order costs of a public examination; given the largely futile character of the examination caused by the bankrupt's evasive and inconsistent answers, it is appropriate to order those costs against the bankrupt personally on a party and party basis; conversely, the committal application was an exercise of the Official Receiver's statutory/quasi‑judicial duty and, absent impropriety or unreasonableness, the Official Receiver should not be personally liable for costs, therefore no order as to costs of the committal application.
11 Oct 2001
The court found the Applicant's counterclaim credible and supported by the Respondent's signed Statement of Final Account, rejected the Respondent's documentary allegations as palpably untrue or unsupported, concluded the Applicant's counterclaim and the withheld employee compensation exceed the statutory demand amount, and in the exercise of its discretion set aside the statutory demand and ordered costs in favour of the Applicant.