22 Jul 2013
The debtor defaulted on the consent judgment, the creditors reasonably refused the proposed instalment plan, the debtor could not effect repayment after adjournment, therefore the court was obliged to make a bankruptcy order against the debtor.
1 Nov 2012
The court concluded the petitioner was justified in refusing the debtor's repayment proposal because the proposed repayment period produced unreasonable delay given the size of the indebtedness, the debtor's explanations and disclosures were unsatisfactory and there was no evidence of sincere attempts to pay; accordingly the petition was allowed and a bankruptcy order was made.
27 Aug 2009
The petitioner's refusal was not unreasonable because the repayment proposal lacked sufficient certainty and enforceability: the sale agreement's balance was conditional and not guaranteed, the proceeds would be received by a third party (Sino Dynamic) with no binding undertaking to pay the petitioner, the debtor failed to provide timely full disclosure of finances and liabilities, and there was real doubt as to the debtor's ability to make the proposed monthly payments; accordingly section 6D(3) was not satisfied and a bankruptcy order was made.
29 Oct 2007
Because the judgment debt remained due and unpaid, the consent stay was breached, the debtors could not show grounds to set aside the judgment nor offer a repayment proposal that it was reasonable for the petitioner to accept (HK$500/month was inadequate and unlikely to be sustainable while interest continued to accrue), the court was obliged to make the usual bankruptcy orders against both debtors.
29 Oct 2007
Because the debt was based on an unsatisfied judgment, the consent stay was breached by the debtors' default, the debtors could not set aside the judgment and did not put forward a repayment proposal that the petitioner was reasonably bound to accept, the court was obliged to make bankruptcy orders against both debtors.
25 Jun 2007
The court made a bankruptcy order because the debts were proven by unchallenged Labour Tribunal awards, the debtor had not taken steps to set aside or appeal the awards, the repayment proposal (HK$2,000 per month) was unreasonably slow and rejected by creditors, and the debts exceeded the statutory minimum under the Bankruptcy Ordinance.
3 Oct 2005
The statutory demand was properly served and the debtor failed to demonstrate present ability to pay or a viable, non‑contingent proposal for a voluntary arrangement; the repayment proposals were speculative and dependent on future success of an employer's project, and therefore a bankruptcy order should be made.
8 Jul 2002
The court was satisfied as to proof of the debt and service of the statutory demand and, absent satisfactory evidence of a viable loan or a financially able guarantor and given unexplained delay since service of the demand, there was no reasonable prospect of payment; accordingly a bankruptcy order was made.