RE KINZIE

HCB 4163/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 4163 OF 2025

________________

________________

__________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

__________________________________

I.  INTRODUCTION

1.  On 15 September 2025, I pronounced a usual bankruptcy order against the Debtor. Here are my reasons.

II.  REASONS FOR A USUAL BANKRUPTCY ORDER

2.  The debt in question is a judgment debt (the “Judgment Debt”) in the sum of HK$19,475.00 under a Costs Order made by Master Thomas Kwong of the High Court dated 9 September 2024 in HCA 1681 of 2023 for costs summarily assessed on 21 March 2025. Statutory demand in respect of the Judgment Debt was served on 24 April 2025.

3.  The Debtor failed to pay any of the Judgment Debt. At the hearing of 15 September 2025, the Debtor informed the Court that she had proof from her mobile phone that she had money to pay. However, I refused to let her submit her mobile phone for me to read as evidence, for the obvious reason that it was not proper.

4.  I made further enquiry with the Debtor as to how she would settle the Judgment Debt, and her response was that she had made attempts to negotiate with the Petitioner, but the Petitioner refused to settle with her. In my view, whether there was negotiation or settlement or not, the more direct way was for the Debtor simply to pay, if she was able to. I saw no reason for any dragging on.

5.  I also bore in mind that the Debtor had at least another other outstanding judgment sum in DCCJ 95 of 2023 in the total sum of over HK$167,000.00 since at least January 2024, and a statutory demand for that was issued on 8 February 2024.

III.  CONCLUSION

6.  Having considered the above, I found it appropriate to pronounce a usual bankruptcy order against the Debtor.

7.  I should here put a note that after the pronouncement of the bankruptcy order, the Debtor sent a letter (dated 15 September 2025) to the Court on 16 September 2025 with a printout of apparently a bank statement of her bank account as at 15 September 2025 showing a balance of HK$19,484.26. First, this was inappropriate; second, this was not evidence; third and in any event, this amount was just HK$9 over the Judgment Debt, and with the outstanding judgment sum in DCCJ 95 of 2023, the Debtor was plainly insolvent (even assuming I would read the printout as evidence).

8.  Lastly, on 6 October 2025, I received a letter from the Debtor addressed to the Petitioner’s solicitors asking the Petitioner’s solicitors to confirm the amount she would have to pay the Petitioner. The amount had already been set out in the Statutory Demand and the Petition. Such request for confirmation does not take the matter any further. Also on 10 and 15 October 2025, I received letters from the Debtor addressed to my clerk this time alleging that her ability to settle the full payment was hampered by lack of information and the Petitioner’s failure to confirm the amount. All these letters, sent after my judgment pronounced on 15 September 2025, are irrelevant to my judgment, but if these letters would mean anything as if they were available at the hearing on 15 September 2025, they would only confirm my view that I should pronounce the bankruptcy order – the Petition had already set out the amount and it was pointless to ask for the confirmation of the amount if the Debtor would really be able and willing to pay.