21 Oct 2019
There being an unpaid judgment debt of HK$592,980.94, no bona fide defence, and the petitioners' conduct not unreasonable under s6D(3) BO, the petitioners were entitled as of right to a bankruptcy order against the debtor; therefore a bankruptcy order must be made and costs are payable out of the estate.
4 Sept 2009
The court found the debtors' proposal was too uncertain and qualified by contingent future events, did not constitute a proper offer that could be accepted to require dismissal, the debtors had not provided full and frank disclosure, and the petitioner's refusal fell within the range of reasonable positions of a hypothetical creditor; therefore s.6D(3) did not oblige dismissal and bankruptcy orders were appropriate.
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.
23 Dec 2002
The court was not satisfied that refusal of the debtor's offer was unreasonable: the payment proposed (US$1,000,000 — ~58% of the judgment) to be paid over more than two years exposed the creditor to risk and a reasonable creditor could properly refuse; accordingly a bankruptcy order was made against the debtor with costs to the petitioner.