RE LIM HUEY CHING

HCMP 659/2025 and HCMP 660/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2896

HCMP 659/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 659 OF 2025

___________________

___________________

AND

HCMP 660/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 660 OF 2025

___________________

___________________

(Heard Together)

__________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

__________________________________

1.  By ex parte Originating Summonses dated 30 April 2025, Mr Leow Quek Shiong and Ms Seah Roh Lin, the joint and several trustees-in-bankruptcy of the property of Mr Lim Oon Kuin (“Mr Lim”) and Ms Lim Huey Ching (“Ms Lim”) (together “Bankrupts”) appointed under the orders of the High Court of Singapore (“Singapore Court”) dated 19 December 2024 (“Trustees”), seek orders for recognition of their appointment with powers to assist them in investigating the Bankrupts’ affairs in Hong Kong. The applications are made under the inherent jurisdiction of the court since the Bankrupts were not adjudged bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Ordinance Cap. 6 (“BO”) and therefore the provisions under the BO have no application.

2.  At the hearing, I made the Orders set out in §§30-31 below. These are the reasons for my judgment.

Relevant Background

3.  The Bankrupts are Singapore citizens and are domiciled in and have residential addresses there.

4.  On 10 and 14 October 2024, Mr Lim and Ms Lim commenced proceedings at the Singapore Court for their own bankruptcy under ss. 310 and 311 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 of Singapore (“IRDA”) on the ground that they were unable to pay their debts and were insolvent. Some of the debts arose out of their respective liabilities as defendants in various proceedings in the Singapore Court for which judgments were entered into by consent in September and October 2024.

5.  According to the Trustees, Mr Lim’s liabilities were SGD 6.07 billion and his assets were SGD 1.1 billion, while Ms Lim’s liabilities were SGD 6.062 billion and her assets were SGD 86.4 million.

6.  On 19 December 2024, Mr Lim and Ms Lim were adjudged bankrupt and the Trustees were appointed over their estates on the same day.

7.  The Bankrupts each submitted a Statement of Affairs (“SOA”) which disclosed the following bank accounts maintained by them in Hong Kong:

(1) Mr Lim: he and Ms Lim have a joint account at Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (“BOC”) numbered [redacted] (“BOC Account”) which held US$ 2,868,869.62 (or SGD 3,738,997.78) as at 28 July 2021.

(2) Ms Lim: in addition to the BOC Account, she has another account at The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”) numbered [redacted] (“HSBC Account”). As at 12 September 2024, it held the sums of HK$ 23,690.90, SGD 4,131.47 and US$ 4,350,932.58.

8.  On 7 January 2025, the Trustees wrote to HSBC and BOC to enquire whether the Bankrupts had opened any accounts in the 5 years preceding 19 December 2014 and, if so, provide information and documents relating to the accounts.

9.  By letter dated 16 January 2025, HSBC explained that it was unable to comply with the requests in this way:

“Please note that [HSBC] falls outside the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. As you would appreciate, [HSBC] is only in a position to disclose a customer’s data or account details and/or act on a customer’s account pursuant to a valid court order applicable under Hong Kong law or otherwise as required by an applicable law or regulation in Hong Kong. In the circumstances, we are therefore unable to accede to your requests.”

10.  Similarly, by letters dated 14 and 20 February 2025, BOC explained that it would only provide the information requested upon receiving an order made by the Hong Kong court:

“We refer to your document dated 7 January 2025, we are pleased to provide you with the requested information once we receive a relevant sealed copy of the Court Order issued by Hong Kong High Court and the identity information of the captioned person for our appropriate action.”

11.  On 30 April 2025, the Trustees issued the Originating Summonses and filed affidavits in support of the applications.

Applicable principles

12.  The relevant principles have been stated in Re Phillip James Kingston (Bankrupt) [2024] 5 HKLRD 788 at §§18 to 20.

13.  The court has power under common law to recognise and give effect to foreign bankruptcy proceedings. The court from which assistance is sought (the assisting court) proceeds on the footing that there ought to be only one universal process regarding the distribution of a bankrupt’s property. If the debtor is domiciled in or has submitted to the jurisdiction of the adjudicating court, the assisting court would ordinarily recognise a foreign bankruptcy adjudication as vesting the bankrupt’s moveable property in the foreign trustee (Re Phillip §18(1)-(3)).

14.  The principles are the same as those applicable to recognition and assistance of foreign insolvency proceedings in respect of a company (Re Phillip §§19-20), which may be summarised as follows:

(1) The common law power to recognise and assist a foreign office-holder does not hinge upon bankruptcy proceedings having been commenced against the debtor in the assisting court, since that court is only asked to recognise the office-holder’s appointment in the place of incorporation as the lawful agent of the debtor as per private international law (Re Phillip §20(1)).

(2) The applicant must establish (a) the foreign bankruptcy proceedings are collective in nature; (b) the foreign proceedings are conducted in the jurisdiction in which the debtor is domiciled or the debtor has submitted to that jurisdiction; (c) the assistance sought is necessary for the administration of a foreign bankruptcy or the performance of the office-holder’s functions; and (d) the order sought is consistent with the substantive law and public policy of the assisting court so as to ensure that it is not available for purposes which are properly the subject of other schemes (Re Phillip §20(2)-(3)).

(3) As regards the extent and terms of assistance, the assisting court may give powers to assist the foreign office-holder in obtaining and gathering information and documents relating to the bankrupt from third parties and locating and securing moveable assets within the jurisdiction (Re Phillips §43(2)).

Mode of application

15.  The present proceedings were brought ex parte. Mr Ludwig Ng, solicitor for the Trustees, submits that this mode of proceedings is appropriate. Unlike Re Phillip where the trustee applied for an order requiring a third party bank to produce documents such that the application was made by way of inter partes originating summons, no such order is sought in the present case. Mr Ng cites Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corp (In Liq) [2023] 3 HKLRD 262 where the administrator of a company in liquidation in the Mainland sought recognition and assistance by way of ex parte originating summons, and the court granted the order sought (§24(2)).

16.  It seems to me that the point is not so much about whether the originating summons is issued in ex parte form[1] or inter partes form[2]. Where the plaintiff issues an originating summons to seek recognition and assistance, he should obtain a hearing date of the originating summons before a Judge. Indeed, the need to obtain a hearing date of the originating summons is expressly provided in Form 10 and Form 11.

17.  Where the plaintiff considers that the application is simple and straight-forward such that it may readily be disposed of by the court without further assistance or submissions from the legal representatives, the plaintiff may lodge his skeleton well in advance of the hearing and enquire if the court is prepared to dispose of the application “on paper”. If, however, the application is not straight-forward or that the plaintiff has not lodged any skeleton argument and draft order in support of the application[3], it would not be appropriate for the plaintiff to ask the court to dispose of the application “on paper”. Indeed, it would only result in unnecessary delay and escalation of costs as the court may raise questions on the application or direct it to be heard at a hearing.

18.  Where an office-holder does not seek an order against a third party, it would not be necessary for the originating summons to be issued in inter partes form (i.e. Form 10).

Conditions for recognition and assistance

19.  The Trustees have established the requisite conditions for the court to grant the orders sought.

20.  First, the bankruptcy proceedings in the Singapore Court are collective in nature. This is reflected in s. 327(1) of IRDA:

“Effect of bankruptcy order

327.—(1) On the making of a bankruptcy order —

(a) the property of the bankrupt —

(i) vests in the Official Assignee[4] without any further conveyance, assignment or transfer; and

(ii) becomes divisible among the bankrupt’s creditors;

(b) the Official Assignee is constituted the receiver of the bankrupt’s property; and

(c) unless otherwise provided by Parts 3 and 13 to 22 —

(i) no creditor to whom the bankrupt is indebted in respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy has any remedy against the person or property of the bankrupt in respect of that debt; and

(ii) no action or proceedings may be proceeded with or commenced against the bankrupt in respect of that debt,

except by the permission of the Court and in accordance with such terms as the Court may impose.”

21.  The effect of the Singapore Court granting a bankruptcy order under IRDA is that:

(1) the bankrupt’s property, wherever located, shall automatically vest in the Official Assignee;

(2) the property becomes divisible amongst the bankrupt’s creditors;

(3) the Official Assignee becomes the receiver of the property, and he holds the property for the benefit of the bankrupt’s creditors as a whole;

(4) no creditor in respect of a provable debt in bankruptcy has any remedy against the bankrupt or his property; and

(5) no action or proceedings may be instituted or continued against the bankrupt regarding that debt, except with leave of the Singapore Court (IRDA s. 2).

22.  The wordings of s. 327 of IRDA are materially the same as ss. 12 and 58 of the BO.

23.  Moreover, the powers of the Official Assignee include investigating the conduct and affairs of the Bankrupts and bringing any action or legal proceedings relating to their property (IRDA ss. 22-23, 39 and 378).

24.  Second, the bankruptcy proceedings are conducted in the Singapore Court in which the Bankrupts are domiciled and they have submitted to that jurisdiction.

25.  Third, the assistance sought is necessary as the Trustees have not been able to obtain any information and documents in respect of the HSBC and BOC Accounts. Mr Ng submits that as matters now stand, the Trustees only require an order recognising their position as trustees-in-bankruptcy of the Bankrupts’ estates with limited powers to assist them in identifying what assets the Bankrupts hold in the HSBC and BOC Accounts, whether there are further assets located in Hong Kong which belong to the Bankrupts’ estates, and whether further investigations into the Bankrupts’ affairs and dealings in Hong Kong are necessary.

26.  Fourth, the order sought would enable the Bankrupts’ assets in Hong Kong to be properly dealt with by the Trustees in the administration of their respective estates. Giving such assistance to the Trustees is consistent with the substantive law and public policy in respect of bankruptcy proceedings in Hong Kong.

27.  At the hearing, this Court asks Mr Ng why the Trustees did not in the Originating Summonses seek an order directing HSBC and BOC to transfer all the funds in the HSBC Account and BOC Account to them, as it is clear that these funds have upon the bankruptcy of Mr Lim and Ms Lim vested in the Trustees. The Trustees could have informed the banks that the estates had been vested in the Trustees by virtue of s. 327(1)(a)(i) of IRDA and consequently, were entitled to request the transfer of the monies deposited in the HSBC and BOC Accounts to them. As the Trustees had not done so, they would not know whether HSBC or BOC would accede to such requests. If the banks subsequently refuse to accede to the Trustees’ requests for transfer of the monies deposited in HSBC Account and BOC Account, the Trustees will have to make another application to the court for assistance.

28.  Mr Ng acknowledges that he has not considered the point and is not in a position to say whether the Trustees may need to make further application to the court for this purpose. With a view to saving time and costs, this Court indicates that the Trustees may apply for such orders on paper, should the need arise.

29.  It seems to me that generally, it would be desirable for the foreign office-holders to first ascertain the stance of the third parties, who are known to have possession of the documents and assets belonging to the estates, before they apply for an order for recognition and assistance from the assisting court. This would ensure that the terms of the order they seek satisfy the requirement of necessity and avoid the need of having to make successive applications to the court.

30.  I make an Order in respect of Mr Lim’s estate in the following terms:

(1) The appointment of the Plaintiffs as the Joint and Several Trustees of Lim Oon Kuin’s (“Bankrupt”) bankruptcy estate pursuant to an order of court HC/ORC 6733/2024 made by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 19 December 2024 in HC/B 3811/2024 be recognised by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

(2) The Plaintiffs have and may exercise in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region the following powers for the purpose of carrying out their functions as trustees of the Bankrupt’s bankruptcy estate:

(a) to request and receive from third parties documents and information belonging to the Bankrupt or to which the Bankrupt is otherwise entitled, including her business dealings, accounts, assets, liabilities and financial affairs;

(b) to locate, protect, secure and take into their possession and control all moveable assets within the jurisdiction of this Court to which the Bankrupt is or appears to be entitled;

(c) to locate, protect, secure and take into their possession and control the books, papers, and records belonging to the Bankrupt or to which the Bankrupt is otherwise entitled including the accountancy and statutory records within the jurisdiction of this Court and to investigate the assets and affairs of the Bankrupt;

(d) to bring legal proceedings and make applications to this Court, whether in their own name or as trustees of the Bankrupt’s bankruptcy estate; and

(e) to retain and employ barristers, solicitors or attorneys, accountants and/or such other agents or professional persons as the Plaintiffs consider appropriate for the purpose of advising or assisting in the execution of their powers and duties under the Order.

(3) The Plaintiffs’ costs of this application be paid out of the assets of the Bankrupt as an expense of the bankruptcy.

(4) There be liberty to apply.

31.  I make the same Order in respect of Ms Lim’s estate save that §(1) reads “The appointment of the Plaintiffs as the Joint and Several Trustees of Lim Huey Ching’s (“Bankrupt”) bankruptcy estate pursuant to an order of court HC/ORC 6731/2024 made by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 19 December 2024 in HC/B 3859/2024 be recognised by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”.