Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nominee duties

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2012

CHIN WAI KAY GEORDIE v. MOK YU HON

Citation

CHIN WAI KAY GEORDIE v. MOK YU HON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV118/2011

Materiality for section 20L is to be judged by reference to the whole IVA process (including information supplied to the nominee and to the court when seeking interim orders) so that a bankruptcy order may be made if information was false or misleading in a material particular or contained material omissions at any stage; a decision under section 20J does not preclude a subsequent section 20L petition and the judge properly exercised his discretion to make the bankruptcy order despite delay in the circumstances of this case.
28 Jan 2003

RE HUI YAU YAT

Citation

RE HUI YAU YAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCBI1142/2002

Section 128(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance applies to funds referred to in Rule 122C(2)(j) of the Bankruptcy Rules; parties to an IVA cannot contract out of the mandatory obligation in section 128(1). Nominees must pay to the Official Receiver funds/dividends that have been unclaimed for more than six months, and upon termination of an IVA nominees may either retain unclaimed funds until the six‑month period expires or pay them earlier to the Official Receiver; IVA proposals must make provision consistent with section 128(1).
19 Apr 2001

HEALTHY WHARF LTD. v. LEUNG YAT TUNG

Citation

HEALTHY WHARF LTD. v. LEUNG YAT TUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV408/2001

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the bankruptcy order because the nominees had not conducted adequate investigations nor verified the debtor's statements (assets, dispositions into trusts, and liabilities); the debtor's disclosure was misleading and incomplete; material issues (possible voidable transfers under s49 and actual beneficial interest in trusts) required inquiry; and the proposal failed to specify timing of dividends rendering it not a sufficiently serious or viable proposal for the court to be satisfied that a creditors meeting should be summoned.
1 Mar 2001

HEALTHY WHARF LTD. v. LEUNG YAT TUNG

Citation

HEALTHY WHARF LTD. v. LEUNG YAT TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2019/2000

The court refused to make an interim order and made a bankruptcy order because the debtor failed to provide full and frank disclosure (notably materially overstating unsecured liabilities by omitting securities and late/ad hoc disclosures), the intended nominees did not discharge independent duties to verify and present a complete picture, and on that basis the proposal was not serious or viable to justify a moratorium.
1 Mar 2001

RE LEUNG YAT TUNG

Citation

RE LEUNG YAT TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCBI1/2001

The court refused to grant the interim order because the debtor and the intended nominees failed to provide full and frank disclosure, including a material misrepresentation of liabilities by omitting security values and inadequate verification by nominees; the proposal was therefore not shown to be serious and viable and the exercise of discretion to impose a moratorium was refused; the bankruptcy order was made as the petition was uncontested.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHIN WAI KAY GEORDIE v. MOK YU HON

RE HUI YAU YAT

HEALTHY WHARF LTD. v. LEUNG YAT TUNG

HEALTHY WHARF LTD. v. LEUNG YAT TUNG

RE LEUNG YAT TUNG