CHENG WAN HING MICHEAL v. WONG KA SEK and WONG KA LAM KING, The Joint and Several Trustees of the property of CHENG WAN HING MICHEAL, a bankrupt

HCB 2011/2021

[2022] HKCFI 898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 2011 OF 2021

______________________________

______________________________

__________________________________

R E A S O N S    F O R    D E C I S I O N

__________________________________

1.  After hearing, this court dismissed the bankrupt’s application. Here below are my reasons.

2.  The bankruptcy order in the present case was made on 10 May 2021 pursuant to the bankrupt’s own petition filed on 1 April 2021. The trustees in bankruptcy were appointed on 30 July 2021.

3.  By summons filed on 11 November 2021, the bankrupt applied for the court to vary the decision of the trustees. Whilst what he stated on the face of the summons was a request for exemption of legal costs, what he stated in the document annexed to the summons was essentially a request for variation of the allowance for the monthly expenses of him and his family agreed to by the trustees.

4.  Section 83 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, Cap 6 provides that the court has the power to interfere with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. However, the case law on the exercise of such power is trite. The court may interfere only when the decision of the trustees is shown to have been perverse or plainly wrong (or in other words, utterly unreasonable or absurd) so that no reasonable trustees would have made: see Re Chung Kau HCB 581/2003 (5 February 2004); 有關鄺月萍的事宜 [2021] HKCU 162. In other words, the court does not at its own initiative or lightly form its own view of the matter in place of that of the trustees.

5.  The affirmation of the trustees explained what happened.

6.  After telephone interview on 1 September 2021, the trustees by letter dated 14 September 2021 to the bankrupt set out their preliminary assessment of his monthly income and expenses in the sums of HK$30,000 and HK$19,955 respectively. On the basis, the bankrupt was requested to make a monthly contribution of HK$10,045 to his bankruptcy estate.

7.  The breakdown of the amounts claimed by the bankrupt and allowed by the trustees did not immediately appear to be extraordinary. In particular, the sum of HK$3,000 requested for supporting the bankrupt’s father was subsumed in the sum of HK$8,000 allowed for parental support. It was noted that the father is entitled to apply for elderly assistance and insufficiency would be expected to be covered by the bankrupt’s siblings. The sibling residing in the same household is also working. A monthly sum of HK$500 was also allowed for medical expenses of the bankrupt.

8.  On 11 October 2021, the bankrupt requested for re-consideration of the medical expenses allowed. For the lack of any supporting documents regarding the amount of medical expenses, the trustees resolved to turn down the request. The bankrupt was informed in writing on 28 October 2021.

9.  Hence the present application.

10.  The bankrupt requested for adjustment of the following allowance:

(1)  HK$2,000-HK$3,000 for his medical treatment, and 2 to 3 such treatments would be required every month, as well as possible surgery in Hong Kong;

(2)  Medical expenses for mother;

(3)  Expenses for food.

11.  The following documentary evidence was produced in support:

(1)  There was a discharge record regarding the bankrupt issued by the Mainland hospital in July 2020 after his stomach surgery. The recommendation given was 4 months of rest, dressing of surgery wound and follow up check in a month.

(2)  There was an attendance slip issued by a Hong Kong clinic recording the bankrupt’s attendance on 4 October 2021. He was given one day of sick leave for gastroenteritis (or stomach infection).

(3)  There were receipts issued by a private doctor regarding the bankrupt’s mother for medication for dermatitis on 3 dates in May, August and November 2021. Each costs HK$550.

12.  (1) and (2) above did not support the bankrupt’s case of the treatments or their frequency or cost or the need for further surgery in Hong Kong. (3) above could not cast doubt on the reasonableness of the allowance for parental support.

13.  It is the bankrupt’s burden to satisfy the court that this is a case justifying interference with the trustees’ decision. The bankrupt fell short of meeting the threshold of showing that the assessment and the decision of the trustees were so perverse and wrong that no reasonable trustees would have made. The trustees made clear to the bankrupt and the court that they would be open to re-consideration whenever new circumstances and evidence are placed before them by the bankrupt. Only that the evidence at the moment before the court for the present application clearly does not suffice. Hence dismissal of the application.

14.  As indicated by the trustees, no order was made as to costs.

15.  The hearing was conducted in punti for the benefit of the bankrupt. If requested, interpreter’s assistance will be arranged for him to receive these reasons for decision when handed down.