RE LAU KAM SING DICKIE

HCB 2311/2019

[2019] HKCFI 1855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 2311 OF 2019

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  The petition was issued by a creditor for the bankruptcy of Mr Lau. It was in respect of a debt for which the amount due under a loan agreement was in the region of $8 million plus interest.

2.  Mr Lau was personally served with a statutory demand on 25 March 2019.  He did nothing to set aside that statutory demand.  The creditor’s petition was issued on 18 April 2019.

3.  Mr Lau’s solicitors put on a notice to act on 20 May 2019.  Despite that notice, his solicitors did not claim to have instructions to receive the petition.  Accordingly, Mr Lo’s solicitors had to personally serve Mr Lau with the petition on 4 June 2019.

4.  Just two days before the hearing before the bankruptcy master on 19 June 2019, ie about a month after Mr Lau was legally represented, Mr Lau’s solicitors issued a notice of intention to oppose dated 17 June 2019.  The single issue raised was that the petitioner was a moneylender without a licence of moneylender and is therefore not entitled to recover.

5.  Despite service of the petition on 4 June, the debtor has not filed any affirmation as of today.  Mr Pang, solicitor acting on behalf of Mr Lau, seeks a week’s adjournment in order to file an affidavit in opposition.

6.  The court asks rhetorically: what is there to oppose?  It is not appropriate for a debtor to sit on a petition and wait for the court’s direction to file an affidavit in opposition.  He should have made use of the time from service to the hearing and used his best endeavours to produce sufficiently precise evidence which is believable to demonstrate a bona fide dispute as regards the debt: Re Szeto Chi Sing, a Debtor [2019] HKCFI 434, Au-Yeung J, §13.

7.  I have heard the submission of Mr Pang today.  Even if I accept all that he says as to the facts, there is no arguable issue of law raised:

(1)  There is no doubt there was a loan for $9.8 million in 2014 but the interest was only 2% per month.  That did not violate the Money Lenders Ordinance, Cap 163.

(2)  Allegedly, the creditor had lent money to Mr Lau and his friend.  The small number of loans in itself did not make the creditor a moneylender within the meaning of the Money Lenders Ordinance.  Mr Pang could not point to any other provision in the Ordinance to assist the court.

(3)  Mr Lau claims that the client would pay him US$2 million and that would be sufficient to pay off the debt.  There is no proof of such intended payment.  Again, even based on what Mr Pang told the court, the invoice stated the due date of payment to be 11 June 2019 which is now past.  There is nothing to indicate that the money would be coming from the client in the near future.

(4)  Mr Lau has purportedly been negotiating with the creditor for settlement.  Such conduct is inconsistent with his having a moneylender’s defence. But in any event, negotiation for settlement is not a ground for adjournment nor is it a defence to the petition.

8.  In the premises, I can see nothing which can demonstrate a bona fide dispute as regards the debt stated in the petition.  I therefore issue a bankruptcy order.  Costs be to the petitioner.