HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Bankruptcy Proceedings1985

RE NG YIN MAN, FARWINA

Files (2)

40022-EN-1985-12-13

RE NG YIN MAN, FARWINA

HTML content

HCB000415A/1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HUNG KONG

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS

Nos. 414 & 415 of 1985

_________

BETWEEN

Re: Yan Chung Kai trading as Kai Kee Piecegoods

AND

Re: Ng Yin Man, Farwina

________

Coram: Hon. Jones, J. in Court

Date of Hearing: 13th December, 1985

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 13th December, 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

 

1. Bankruptcy petitions Nos. 413 to 416 of 1985 all relate to a judgment obtained by the petitioning creditor, the China and South Sea Bank Ltd. against the respective debtors for the sum of $6,371,324.48 plus interest and costs. Petitions Nos. 413 and 416 have today been adjourned to a date to be fixed in order that the debtors in those cases file further evidence. The other two petitions have proceeded today for hearing.

2. Petition No. 414 of 1985 is against Mr. Yan Chung Kai whilst No. 415 relates to his wife. Bankruptcy notices based on the judgment debt were served upon these debtors on the 20th May 1985. The petitions based upon failure to comply with the bankruptcy notices were filed on the 1st August 1985. Both debtors admit their indebtedness, but oppose the grant of a receiving order on the grounds that they have insufficient assets after appropriate deductions to pay a dividend of 15% in accordance with the provisions of section 9(3) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance. No issue arises today on the vexed question as to the burden of proof upon which there are conflicting decisions. I have therefore been invited by Mr. Cheung who appeared today for the petitioning creditor to exercise my inherent discretion by granting receiving orders.

3. In Bankruptcy No. 414 of 1985, the debtor has filed an affirmation which was affirmed on the 27th September 1985. In that affirmation he sets out details of his indebtedness to other creditors. According to his solicitor, Mr. To, his total indebtedness exceeds HK$9,000,000. The debtor is a married man with one son, He lives in rented premises. The rent is paid by his younger brother. He states that he is the Manager of Healey Superstore Ltd. where he earns a monthly salary of $7,000 with double pay at the end of the year. He is not provided with quarters and does not derive any other benefit from the company. Out of his income, he contributes $5,000 to his wife for the household expenses which includes a sum of $1,000 for water, gas and electricity, and also includes school fees and tuition for his son. The balance of $2,000 is kept by the debtor for his own personal expenses. His wife is not employed but looks after their son. He states that he has no real property in Hong Kong or elsewhere and has no savings.

4. An affirmation has been filed on behalf of the petitioning creditor by Mr. Yen Fu Sin who is the Deputy General Manager. He makes reference to various matters that have not been disclosed by the debtor and in particular says that the debtor is the shareholder and director of a company called Never Second Investment Ltd. in which it is alleged that he holds 900,000 shares out a total number of 3,000,000. The debtor is also a director of Monsieur Design Co. Ltd. and in respect of this company, Never Second is also a director and shareholder. The company in fact holds 3,600 shares out of a total number of 4,000. That Monsieur Design Co. L td in turn operates a firm called Narita Trading Co. which carries on the business of importing furniture to be sold by furniture shops operated by Healey Steel Furniture Co. Ltd. and/or Healey Super Store Ltd. Mr. Yen claims that the debtor is a director and former shareholder of Healey Steel Furniture Co. Ltd. Never Second is also a director and shareholder of this Company holding 8,000 out of 10,000 shares. It is further alleged that the debtor was formerly a director of Olympic Winner Co. Ltd. from which company he resigned on 25th May 1985 which is significant having regard to the fact that the bankruptcy notice was served upon him on the 20th May 1985. Never Second was formerly a shareholder of this company with 330,000 shares out of a total number of 990,000, the shares being transferred on the. 6th September 1984. Olympic Winner Co. Ltd. was apparently a former shareholder of Healey Super Store Ltd. of which the debtor was said to be the manager. Olympic Winner hold 9,999, shares out of a total number of 10,000 shares. The debtor was also formerly a director of Healey King Holdings Ltd. from which company he resigned on the 25th May 1985. Healey King Holdings Ltd. in turn is a shareholder of Healey Super Store Ltd. holding 9,999 shares out of a total number of 10,000. Further evidence with regard to Healey Super Store Ltd. is set out in this affirmation in which it is said that the Company operates a chain of furniture shops situate both in Hong Kong and in Kowloon. The furniture shops were previously operated by Healey Steel Furniture Co. Ltd. of which company the debtor is a director and former shareholder. Reference is also made in the affirmation to the proceedings against him which were instituted on the 14th December 1983 for the recovery of monies advanced under a mortgage dated the 6th September 1980. Shortly after the institution of those proceedings, the furniture shops previously operated by Healey Steel Furniture Ltd. were switched to Healey Super Store Ltd. According to business registration records, the debtor is still the proprietor of Kai Kee Piece-Goods.

5. A helpful chart setting out details of the debtors, directorships and shareholdings was submitted by Mr. Cheung on behalf of the petitioning creditor. In his affirmation of the 27th September 1985, the debtor said that his indebtedness arose as a result of the failure of his business. In that affirmation he said he was in the course of preparing further evidence to prove his business loss, but he has not in fact sought to adduce such evidence. Mr. Knos who today appeared on behalf of the Official Receiver supported the Petitioners' application. The debtor has incurred considerable debts arising from his business activities. He has chosen to give no explanation for his failure, and evidently considers that it is unnecessary to do so. It is clear that the debtor has not made full disclosure. Although upon the evidence available the debtor has insufficient assets to pay a dividend of 15% nevertheless in the exercise of my discretion and in the public interest this is a case that warrants a thorough investigation of the affairs of the debtor by the Official Receiver. Accordingly I shall make the usual receiving order together with the usual order as to costs.

6. In the second Bankruptcy Petition No. 415, the only evidence adduced is that by the debtor in her affirmation which was affirmed on the 27th September 1985. She says that judgment was entered against her in default because she had mortgaged property in order to secure banking facilities for her husband in respect of his business Kai Kee Piecegoods. She says that she is a housewife and confirms that she receives $5,000 per month for household expenses. Her monthly expenses amount to $4,745. She says she has no real property in Hong Kong or elsewhere. Although she has some savings account, there are only some small amounts in credit. She states she has no other savings, jewellery, shares, stocks or debentures.

7. Mr. Cheung, on behalf of the petitioning creditor drew my attention to certain entries, which were revealed in her bank statements which were exhibited as "NYM-5" and in particular to credits of $20,000 on the 23rd August 1984, $35,000 on the 28th September 1984, two further credits totalling $8,000 on the 23rd November 1984, $6,242 on the 30th November 1984 and $20,000 on the 4th February 1985. No evidence has been adduced as to where these monies have come from nor was any evidence adduced as to how she acquired monies to purchase the property in 1980. Mr. To says that the entries have no significance for the account has never been substantially in credit. That may well be true, but at present there is no evidence one way or the other. Although the debtor may not have been concerned actively with her husband's business affairs, she was prepared to provide a guarantee for the banking facilities granted by the petitioning creditor for this purpose. As was submitted by Mr. Knos, the affairs of both this debtor and her husband are closely interlinked.

8. In my judgment and in the public interest the affairs of the wife also require a thorough investigation by the Official Receiver. Accordingly in the exercise of my discretion I shall make a receiving order against her together with the usual order as to costs.

(B.L. Jones)

Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. P. Cheung (K.W. Ng & Co.) for Petitioners

Mr. W.K. To (W.K. To & Co.) for Debtors

Mr. E. Knos for Official Receiver

40023-EN-1985-11-01

RE NG YIN MAN, FARWINA

HTML content

HCB000415/1985

Headnote

 

                Amendments of petitions in bankruptcy where the act of bankruptcy relied upon is non compliance with a Bankruptcy Notice - Effect of order 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the necessity for making it clear in the Bankruptcy Notice when time begins to run. Unless it is possible to calculate the time in the Bankruptcy Notice the notice is defective. These cases dealt with some of the situations which can arise.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

Bankruptcy No. B413 of 1985

---------------

 

Re : YAM SZE PUI

Ex-parte : THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LIMITED, a creditor

---------------

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

Bankruptcy No. B414 of 1985

----------------

 

Re : YAN CHUNG KAI, trading as KAI KEE PIECEGOODS

Ex-parte : THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LIMITED, a creditor

--------------

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

Bankruptcy No. B415 of 1985

---------------

 

Re : NG YIN MAN, FARWINA

Ex-parte : THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LIMITED, a creditor

---------------

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

Bankruptcy No. B416 of 1985

----------------

 

Re : YIP KIT WAH

Ex-parte : THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LIMITED, a creditor

 

----------------

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

Bankruptcy No. B448 of 1985

----------------

 

Re : WONG MIN FOOK trading as YAU LEE (also known as YAU LEE COMPANY)

Ex-parte : Caltex Oil Hong Kong Limited (a creditor)

-----------------

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

Bankruptcy No. B634 of 1985

------------------

 

Re : CHIK YIP FAI of House No. 35, Sum Long Village, Chen Lan Shu, Clear Water Bay Road, Kowloon.

Ex-parte : LEE HO KEE trading as HANG LEE COMPANY

-----------------

 

Coram: The Hon. Mr Justice Mayo in Court

Date of Hearing: 1st November 1985

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 1st  November 1985

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. Applications have been made to me concerning amendments to these various petitions for receiving orders to be made. This has necessitated my making three separate orders in respect of the different situations which have arisen. I hope that it will be of convenience to all parties concerned if I write one judgment which it is hoped will cover most of the problems which arise when it is found to be necessary for amendments to be made of dates given in petitions relating to the issue of bankruptcy notices and the date of the act of bankruptcy which may arise when there has been non-compliance with the notices.

2. I will deal first with the situation which arose in Bankruptcy 413 of 1985. Paragraph 4 of the petition read :

"

That the said YAM SZE PUI within three months before the date of presentation of this petition has committed the following act of bankruptcy, namely:-
that the said YAM SZE PUI, failed before the 7th day of July 1985 to comply with the requirements of a Bankruptcy Notice duly served on him on the 30th of May, 1985 before the hour of 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon."

It was noticed by the solicitor acting for the petitioning creditor that the date given for the expiration of the notice had been incorrectly inserted. An application was made to me on the 23rd of September 1985 to delete the word 'July' and substitute in place thereof the word 'June'. Although the application to amend the petition was made outside the three month period for the act of bankruptcy, I gave leave to the petitioning creditor to effect the amendment sought.

3. The solicitor acting for the petitioner, Mr Lam, submitted that I was right in ordering this amendment as the amendment related to a matter of form rather than to a matter of substance. Mr To, for the debtors, submitted that the amendment should not have been made. He invited me to dismiss the petition. Mr To placed reliance upon the authority of re Hastings, a bankrupt(1) and the judgment of Mr Justice Jones in re NG CHO SHING(2). He argued that an incorrect date had been given in the petition for the coming into effect of the act of bankruptcy. When his client had been served with the papers he would not have known which date was correct and accordingly the decisions in re Hastings and NG CHO SHING were relevant. The order that I had made for the amendment of the petition was ineffectual as it was outside the three month period for the act of bankruptcy. In effect a new act of bankruptcy was being relied upon.

4. Mr Lam submitted that this case could be distinguished from re Hastings and NG CHO SHING. As the original date of service of the notice on the debtor of the 30th of May 1985 was correct, it would have been possible for the debtor to calculate that the notice expired on the 7th of June and accordingly the defect was a defect of form rather than substance. He referred to in re Dunhill(3) as authority for the proposition that where the date could be thus calculated, the defect was of form rather than substance. I am satisfied that Mr Lam is correct in his contention. This case can be distinguished from in re Hastings and NG CHO SHING as it is possible to calculate when the act of bankruptcy occurred. This being the case it was in order for me to grant the leave on the 23rd of September 1985 and by virtue of the amendment the papers were in order.

5. I did not make a receiving order against the debtor as a notice of opposition was filed on another ground. I adjourned the hearing of the petition to a further date in the future. The situation was similar in B414, 415 and 416.

6. I will deal next with the petition in Bankruptcy No. B448 of 1985. Here paragraph 4 of the petition reads :-

"

That the debtor within three months before the date of presentation of this petition has committed the following act of bankruptcy, namely :
'that he failed to comply with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice duly served on him on the 28th day of May 1985 within 7 days after service of the said bankruptcy notice on him."'

It is evident from the affirmation which was affirmed by the petitioning creditor's process server that he was unable to personally serve the debtor on the 28th of May 1985. Instead on that day he served the papers by posting them by pre-paid post to the last known address of the debtor. It will be appreciated that by virtue of the provisions contained in Order 10 rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which apply as the bankruptcy rules are silent on this point that 7 days must elapse from the posting of the process before the service is deemed to be effectual. This means that the debtor was not deemed to have been served with the bankruptcy notice until 7 days after the 28th of May. Therefore the notice only began running from the 4th of June onwards. Mr Alexander Wong, who was representing the petitioning creditor, sought leave to amend the petition by making it clear that the deemed date of service was the effective date. He argued that re Dunhill could save him in the same way as it had Mr Lam. I regret that I cannot agree with this. If the paragraph in the petition is taken at its face value unamended it is not possible for the debtor to calculate when the act of bankruptcy would have occurred. In my view the situation is indistinguishable from in re Hastings and NG CHO SHING. This being the case I declined to order the amendments sought by Mr Wong and having regard to the fact that the three month period for the act of bankruptcy has now expired I had no alternative but to dismiss the petition.

7. Finally I will consider the amendment sought in Bankruptcy 634 of 1985. Here for practical purposes the situation was similar to the position I have outlined in Bankruptcy No. 448 of 1985. There is however one important distinguishing feature. In this case the three month period for the act of bankruptcy has not yet expired. Although the petition is defective as it presently stands it is open to the petitioning creditor to apply for an amendment within the three month period. Mr Ip for the petitioning creditor sought to add the words 'by way of posting in an envelope with duly pre-paid postage' at the end of paragraph 4 of his petition. By adding these words, it would be possible for the debtor to calculate the period of the bankruptcy notice and thus rectify the defect in the petition. I gave appropriate leave to Mr Ip.

8. In these applications I was assisted by Mr Osborn and Mr Knos of the Official Receiver's Office. I would like to express my appreciation for the assistance they gave me in these cases. Mr Knos suggested that it would be helpful to lay down some guidelines for the legal profession on this subject. I agree that this is desirable. I do not though consider that it would be right for me to lay down any prescribed form of wording as no such form is required by the rules. I would however like to make it clear that whenever papers are served by post in accordance with Order 10 of the Rules practitioners would be well advised to make it abundantly clear when the bankruptcy notice runs from. It would seem to be wise to include a statement that the papers have been served by post and that the date when service is deemed to have been effected is included in the petition.

(Simon Mayo)

Judge of the High Court

(1) [1985] 1 A.E.R. 885

(2) (unreported) Bankruptcy 82 of 85

(3) [1894] 2 Q.B. 234

Representation:

 Mr. Lam of K.W. Ng & Co. for Petitioner 
 Mr. W.K. To of W.K. To & CO. for Debtors

 Mr. Osborn for Official Receiver

(Re : Bkcy. Nos. 413/85 414/85, 415/85 & 416/85)

Mr. Alexander Wong instructed by Lo, Wong & Tsui for Petitioner 
Mr. Knos for Official Receiver
(Re: Bkcy. No. 448/85)

Mr. John Ip of John Ip & Co. for Petitioner
Mr. Knos for Official Receiver
(Re : Bkcy. No. 634/85)