|
CACV000141/1985
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL |
1985, No. 141
|
|
(Civil)
|
BETWEEN
|
WONG WAI GING |
Appellant |
|
AND
|
|
|
CITIBANK N.A. |
Respondent |
_____________
Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Cons & Fuad, JJ.A.
Date of Hearing: 29 November 1985
Date of Judgment: 29 November 1985
___________
JUDGMENT
___________
Fuad, J.A.:
1. This is an appeal from a Receiving Order made by Mayo, J. against Madam WONG Wai-ging. She appeals in person.
2. Citibank N.A. presented a Petition against Madam Wong and filed it on 24 April 1985, based on an act of bankruptcy said to have occurred within 3 months before the presentation of the Petition. The act of bankruptcy alleged was that Madam Wong had become a judgment-debtor of Citibank to the extent of $161,483 (with interest and costs) as from 21 August 1984, and that she had failed to comply with the terms of a bankruptcy notice served upon her by 11 March 1985.
3. Mayo, J, heard the Petition on 17 September 1985 and made a Receiving Order on that day.. He delivered a written judgment on 25 September giving his reasons. The Judge had before him an affirmation made by Madam Wong, and oral evidence that she adduced. He concluded that, for the purposes of s. 9(3) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6), he had not been satisfied that the debtor's "assets for division .... [would] be sufficient to pay a dividend of 15 per cent". He decided, nevertheless, for reasons that he gave, that he would exercise the discretion given to him by s. 9(3) of the Ordinance, by making the Order sought,
4. Madam Wong's original Notice of Appeal gave the following ground upon which she sought to challenge the Judge's decision -
|
"
|
The ... Appellant opposes the making of ... any receiving order ... as all her … assets do not exceed 15% of her total liabilities.". |
|
5. She then filed Additional Grounds of Appeal -
|
"
|
1. The Judge failed to give the Judgment Debtor chance to call witnesses to prove that the money in the bank accounts of the Judgment Debtor should belong to Mr. Jim Fook Lam and Mr. Leung Yan Kam, the Judgment Debtor's husband.
|
|
|
2. Investigations have been made by officers in the Official Receiver's office. They searched the Judgment Debtor's home and safe deposit boxes in Hang Seng Bank and The Chartered Bank. Nothing valuable was found therein. This is in fact to corroborate the Judgement Debtor's statement that she has insufficient assets to satisfy 15% of the Judgment debt.". |
|
6. I am not prepared to accept that the Judge would not have allowed Madam Wong to call witnesses if she had wanted to do so and she was honest enough to admit that she had not asked the Judge for an opportunity to call further evidence. The remaining grounds of Madam Wong's appeal are, strictly speaking, misconceived - she appears to have been under the impression that the learned Judge had found against her on the issue whether or not it had been established that her available assets would be sufficient to pay a dividend of 15 per cent. This was not so. However, since she was unrepresented, I agreed with my Brothers to allow her to advance any reasons she might have for saying that the Judge had wrongly exercised his discretion in making the Receiving Order despite his finding.
7. Mayo, J. fully and cogently explained the reasons which prompted him to make the Order appealed against. I need not set them out. I will content myself by stating my conclusion that Madam Wong has not come within measurable distance of persuading me that there are any grounds upon which this Court could legitimately interfere with the Judge's exercise of discretion.
8. And so, for these reasons, I would dismiss this appeal.
Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:
9. Not only do I think that there is no ground upon which we can interfere with the exercise of the Judge's discretion, but I think that the Judge clearly came to the right decision and I would dismiss this appeal.
Cons, J.A.:
10. I agree.
Representation:
Appellant in person.
Mr. Thomas Lai (Chan & Chuk) for Respondent/Petitioner.
|