RE YUEN OI YEE LISA

HCB 8954/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPCTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 8954 OF 2007

______________________

______________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1.  This is a judgment creditor’s petition for the bankruptcy of the judgment debtor.

2.  The petition is based on a judgment sum of $529,701 being the amount of costs fixed by Lam J in August 2007 and payable by the judgment debtor.

3.  That debt not having been satisfied the judgment creditor commenced this petition in October 2007.

4.  The judgment debtor’s affirmation dated 7 January 2008 raises essentially two grounds of opposition:

(a)	there is a pending appeal against the order of Lam J on which the debt was founded;
(b)	she has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand against the judgment creditor, the amount of which exceeds the amount of the judgment debt.

5.  In relation to paragraph 4(a) above, a pending appeal does not of itself constitute a sufficient ground for resisting a bankruptcy petition; see, for example, RHC Ord. 59 r. 13(1)(a) and (b).

6.  In relation to paragraph 4(b) above:

(1)	the evidence adduced in support of the cross-claim and so on must satisfy the court that there is a genuine triable issue that the debt is disputed on substantial as opposed to trivial or frivolous grounds : Re Chu Wai Lun, exp. Eagle Star Life Assurance Ltd., HCB 9235/2002 (29 September 2003);
(2)	whether the assertions are believable is a question to be answered not by taking those assertions in isolation but rather by taking them in the context of so much of the background as is either undisputed or beyond reasonable dispute: Re Safe Rich Industries Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 81/1994 (3 November 1994), p. 5;
(3)	delay in putting forward a claim may lead to an inference that it is not put forward in good faith, but only as a pretext in order to stave of bankruptcy: Yeung Chung Hay and Anor v. International Paint LLC, CACV 115 and 116/2006 (6 December 2006), paragraph 25 citing Re a Debtor (No. 554/DS/98) [2000] 1 BCLC 103, 114.

7.  I agree with the judgment creditor that the matters raised by the judgment debtor bear the indicia of not being substantial and are not raised in good faith.  First, the evidence adduced by her is flimsy and logically incoherent.  Secondly, she fails to set aside the statutory demand in time (r. 47, Bankruptcy Rules (Cap. 6A)).  Finally, the judgment debtor has repeatedly commenced abusive legal proceedings against the judgment creditor (among others): see, for example, Yuen Oi Yee Lisa v. Lam Kit Seong, Miranda, HCA 2107/2006 (8 August 2007) and Elizabeth Lee (Ah Foon) v. Kit Seong Lam Ng (Ah Hing), HCA 24/2008 (11 January 2008).

8.  The judgment debtor has, in contravention of Poon J’s order dated 8 January 2008, purported to file and serve two affirmations respectively dated 20 February 2008 and 21 February 2008.  No leave has been given for her to do so and, not being satisfied that valid reasons have been put forth, I would not have given leave either.  But even if the contents of those affirmations were to be taken into account, they do not constitute good grounds for not granting the relief sought by this petition.

9.  By reason of the above matters, I am satisfied that the judgment creditor has established the facts in support of the petition.  There is no valid justification for adjourning the petition or otherwise for refusing relief.

10.  Accordingly, there will be the usual bankruptcy order with costs.