Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unsatisfactory pre‑bankruptcy conduct

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2018

RE NANIK DAYARAM

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2497
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7651/2011

The court found both grounds under s.30A(4)(c) and s.30A(4)(d) established: the bankrupt failed to co-operate and his pre-bankruptcy conduct was unsatisfactory (including suspicious transfers and post-petition dissipation of MPF funds). Balancing rehabilitation and public interest, and noting investigation is incomplete and the bankrupt's uncooperative conduct, the court exercised its discretion to suspend the running of discharge for three years from 12 June 2017 (costs reserved).
27 May 2014

RE LO YIU CHUEN

Citation

RE LO YIU CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB14364/2009

The Master found on the balance of probabilities that the Bankrupt's pre-bankruptcy conduct was unsatisfactory — notably the sale of his property three days after judgment, apparent use of proceeds to pay substantial gambling debts, and unusually generous tenancy terms benefiting related parties — and therefore exercised the discretion under section 30A(3) to suspend the automatic discharge for six months from 19 January 2014; costs were ordered nisi against the Bankrupt.
7 Mar 2008

RE LAW PAK WAI

Citation

RE LAW PAK WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB10680/2002

The court found that excessive pre-bankruptcy borrowing in each case constituted unsatisfactory conduct under s30A(4)(d), but the trustees failed to prove deliberate misrepresentation because they did not adduce specific evidence from lenders or staff; given the bankrupts' satisfactory post‑bankruptcy conduct and significant contributions, the court exercised its discretion not to suspend automatic discharge and dismissed the applications.
7 Mar 2008

RE LAW CHUEN MAN

Citation

RE LAW CHUEN MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB10789/2002

The court held that over‑borrowing immediately prior to bankruptcy was established and constituted unsatisfactory conduct under s30A(4)(d), but the trustees failed to prove deliberate misrepresentations because they did not adduce specific evidence from lenders; balancing the proven misconduct against post‑bankruptcy cooperation and substantial contributions, the court exercised its discretion against suspending automatic discharge and dismissed the trustees' applications.
7 Mar 2008

RE LAW CHAU KUK

Citation

RE LAW CHAU KUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB17538/2002

The court held that over-borrowing shortly before the presentation of petitions amounted to unsatisfactory pre-bankruptcy conduct under s30A(4)(d), but found that trustees failed to adduce sufficient specific evidence to establish misrepresentations; having regard to each bankrupt's cooperative post-bankruptcy conduct and significant contributions to estates, the court exercised its discretion to refuse to suspend automatic discharge and dismissed the trustees' applications; interim suspension orders were discharged.
7 Mar 2008

RE HO KAI WONG

Citation

RE HO KAI WONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1098/2003

The court held that excessive pre-bankruptcy borrowing in these cases constituted unsatisfactory conduct under s30A(4)(d) but the trustees failed to prove alleged misrepresentations because they did not adduce specific evidence from frontline staff or lenders; weighing the misconduct against post-bankruptcy cooperation and significant contributions, the court exercised its discretion not to suspend automatic discharge and dismissed the trustees' applications, also imposing personal cost consequences on the trustees.
7 Mar 2008

RE HO SHUK YEE

Citation

RE HO SHUK YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB21721/2002

Over‑borrowing by the bankrupts shortly before presentation of petitions constituted unsatisfactory conduct under s30A(4)(d), but trustees failed to prove deliberate misrepresentations because they did not adduce specific evidence from lenders; given each bankrupt's satisfactory post‑bankruptcy conduct and substantial contributions to estates, exercise of discretion did not justify suspending automatic discharge, so all applications were dismissed.
4 Dec 2007

FRED LEE AND ANOTHER v. TONG MAN KIT

Citation

FRED LEE AND ANOTHER v. TONG MAN KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB17349/2002

The trustees failed to prove the statutory ground of unsatisfactory pre-bankruptcy conduct on the evidence: the UA loan was taken in the context of imminent pressure from a major creditor and an aggressive lender approach and was not unreasonable; omissions and inaccuracies in the loan application forms were attributable to lender staff practices and rapid processing rather than deliberate misrepresentation by the bankrupt; additionally the trustees unreasonably delayed and failed to investigate pre-bankruptcy conduct, which militated against suspension. Therefore the objection was dismissed…
12 Oct 2007

FRED LEE AND ANOTHER v. LAM KWOK KEUNG

Citation

FRED LEE AND ANOTHER v. LAM KWOK KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB22795/2002

The court held the bankrupt's pre-bankruptcy conduct was unsatisfactory under s30A(4)(d) because he contracted substantial debt while insolvent (completion finance for Winsome Property), maintained an excessive and disproportionate portfolio of properties that produced large provable debts, and made material misrepresentations/omissions on a credit application; exercising discretion in view of the seriousness and limited mitigating factors, the court suspended the running of the relevant period for automatic discharge for 9 months from 14 January 2007 and made no order as to costs.
28 Sept 2007

FRED LEE, trustee of the property of WONG CHI WAI SUNMY, a bankrupt v. WONG CHI WAI SUNMY

Citation

FRED LEE, trustee of the property of WONG CHI WAI SUNMY, a bankrupt v. WONG CHI WAI SUNMY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB12941/2002

Although some pre-bankruptcy acts (careless misrepresentation on loan forms and gambling conduct) were found unsatisfactory, the trustee failed to conduct adequate investigations, the bankrupt cooperated, made substantial contributions to the estate, no proving creditors objected, and the unsatisfactory conduct did not reach the exceptional gravity required to justify suspension of automatic discharge; therefore the exercise of discretion to suspend discharge was refused and the objection dismissed.