Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Public examination

  • 11 Dec 2024

    RE LI XIAOMING

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3534
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB6083/2018

    The court found on the balance of admissible evidence that the Bankrupt engaged in unsatisfactory and obstructive conduct and failed to make full and frank disclosure (including failure to surrender share certificates, late/insufficient Annual Statements and piecemeal responses), such that discharge would prejudice administration. Applying the two-stage test under s30A, the statutory grounds were established and the court exercised its discretion to suspend the automatic discharge for the statutory maximum period of four years; issues of admissibility and the Bankrupt's alleged mental ill‑hea…

  • 18 Aug 2006

    RE WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

    Citation
    RE WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV244/2004

    The court held that a liquidator should not supply depositions taken at a s.221 private examination directly to the police without first obtaining the leave of the court under its supervisory power over depositions (r.62 and ss.221/222 read purposively); however, in the present case there was no contempt because no significant adverse effect on the administration of justice was shown and part disclosure was subsequently authorized by the court, so the appeal was dismissed.

  • 11 Jul 2006

    RE LEUNG YAT TUNG

    Citation
    RE LEUNG YAT TUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV119/2006

    The Court of Appeal set aside the discovery order because the Master improperly based production on a finding that the bankrupt was equivalent to Harbour Front Ltd without sufficient basis and clear wording/notice; the Master’s general discretion to award costs was upheld but the costs were reduced by excluding the third day's costs attributable to the set-aside discovery order and the adjournment sine die was remitted to the Master for reconsideration; the bankrupt must pay the Official Receiver’s costs of the public examination reduced to HKD181,331 and bear 75% of the costs of the appeal t…

  • 14 Jan 2005

    RE VINCENT KAY LO IP

    Citation
    RE VINCENT KAY LO IP
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB1209/2000

    On the balance of probabilities the Official Receiver proved the bankrupt obstructed and failed to cooperate in administration by impeding realization of Canadian properties, withholding and providing incomplete Gaylaw records and fabricating documents, impeding realization of Wei Wei shares and failing to make contributions; these findings satisfy s.30A(4)(b),(c) and (d) and justify suspending automatic discharge for the statutory maximum period of four years (discharge suspended until 13 August 2008).

  • 14 Oct 2004

    RE TECHWIN ELECTRONIC LTD

    Citation
    RE TECHWIN ELECTRONIC LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW299/2000

    The court determined that the alleged defects were errors of interpretation rather than errors in the English shorthand transcript, there was no indication the shorthand writer failed to accurately record the examination, and therefore the respondent must sign the transcript; the tape recording should be released to the respondent and a copy to the Official Receiver on undertakings as to costs; costs of the application were payable by the respondent, assessed at $8,000.

  • 17 Jun 2003

    THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. CHAN HAY MUK AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. CHAN HAY MUK AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP4754/2002

    A further six month extension was granted because the Official Receiver had made investigatory progress but the public examinations and investigation were not complete, preventing a fair assessment of whether to commence disqualification proceedings; on that basis the court found it appropriate in the public interest to grant the extension.

  • 25 Apr 2003

    RE LI TAT KONG

    Citation
    RE LI TAT KONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB741/1995

    The court exercised its discretion to hear the out‑of‑time leave application and granted leave to appeal on both identified costs issues because arguable points of law exist: (1) whether the public‑officer costs principle applies in these circumstances in light of Re Southbourne, and (2) whether the departure from the general practice in ordering the bankrupt to pay public examination costs is open to appellate scrutiny. The court declined to decide issues of extension of time, which remain for the Court of Appeal.

  • 28 Mar 2003

    RE LI TAT KONG

    Citation
    RE LI TAT KONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB741/1995

    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.

  • 6 Feb 2003

    THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. TONG WING MAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. TONG WING MAN AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP5157/2001

    The court found proven against all respondents persistent failure to file annual returns, accounting records offences and failure to submit a statement of affairs; additionally, the 2nd respondent misused company bank accounts by signing blank cheques and the 4th respondent misapplied company assets by permitting the company to pay rent after transfers. Those findings rendered each respondent unfit under s.168H and mandatory disqualification orders were imposed: 4th respondent 6 years, 1st and 2nd respondents 4 years each, 3rd and 5th respondents 3 years each, with the disqualification to tak…

  • 23 Dec 2002

    RE LI TAT KONG

    Citation
    RE LI TAT KONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB741/1995

    Rule 83 could not be relied upon as conferring an independent committal jurisdiction (held not within ambit of rule‑making power); on the evidence the Official Receiver had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Li had refused or wilfully failed to answer questions under s19 or wilfully failed to perform duties under s26; accordingly application for committal dismissed and no contempt found.