RE CHAN SIU YIN CLIVE

HCB 3239/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 3239 OF 2014

____________

Re: CHAN SIU YIN CLIVE, Judgment Debtor

Ex Parte: SHAHDAN LIMITED, Judgment Creditor (Petitioner)

____________

Before: Hon G Lam J in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 July 2014

Date of Decision: 14 July 2014

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

 

1.  In this matter, the bankruptcy petition is based on a default judgment obtained by the petitioner in HCA 1144/2013. 

2.  In that action, the debtor was sued together with a company called BRU Living Limited as the guarantor and the tenant respectively under a tenancy agreement in respect of certain shop premises in Miramar Shopping Centre, Kowloon.

3.  The statutory demand was for the amounts of HK$1,059,956.10, HK$815,121.60 and HK$236,275.01, together with interest.

4.  The statutory demand was personally served on the debtor in October 2013.  There has not been any application to set aside either the default judgment or the statutory demand. 

5.  The bankruptcy petition dated 30 April 2014 was served on the debtor on 22 May 2014 personally.  The petition came before the bankruptcy judge on 30 June 2014.  Mr Chan was then unable to put forward any valid ground of opposition, though the judge was in the end persuaded to adjourn the petition for two weeks to today for Mr Chan to consider his position and take legal advice if appropriate.  The judge added on the last occasion that if the debtor failed to return to the court with any valid ground of opposition, the court would make a bankruptcy order against him. 

6.  I am afraid that I do not find that Mr Chan has been able to raise any valid ground of opposition today.  In particular, I do not accept that a person could escape liability under a guarantee simply by pleading that he was executing documents on behalf of the company. 

7.  The debtor also claims that he did not know the effect of the guarantee.  But, as is well known, the defence of non est factum is not available to a person in Mr Chan’s position being a literate person of sound mind who has been carrying on business.

8.  In these circumstances, it does not seem to me that any ground has been shown for delaying these proceedings any further. 

9.  I therefore make the usual bankruptcy order.

(Godfrey Lam) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court

Mr Donny Chiu, of Chow, Griffiths & Chan, for the Judgment Creditor (Petitioner)

The Judgment Debtor appeared in person

Ms Carman Chan, for the Official Receiver