CHAN CHOI HAR IVY v. DADRA INC.

FAMV No. 23 of 2025

[2025] HKCFA 12

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 23 OF 2025 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV NO. 74 OF 2023)

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

DETERMINATION

___________________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1.  This is the Determination of the Appeal Committee.  The plaintiff Dadra Inc obtained summary judgment against the defendant on a dishonoured cheque in the sum of HK$90 million plus interest.  As the judgment debt was not satisfied, the plaintiff commenced enforcement proceedings under Order 49B of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A), requiring the defendant to attend for oral examination as to her means and to produce relevant books and documents.  Orders for disclosure were made but not complied with by the defendant. 

2.  In the course of those proceedings, the defendant was adjudged bankrupt on the petition of a different judgment creditor.  Acting pursuant to section 12(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6), the plaintiff sought and obtained leave to continue with the Order 49B enforcement proceedings.  Those proceedings led to a finding that the defendant had wilfully failed to make the ordered disclosures and, upon further application by the plaintiff, she was ordered to be imprisoned for 6 weeks (with a stay of execution pending appeal).  Her appeal to the Court of Appeal against that order was dismissed and, having been granted a further stay of execution, she now applies to the Appeal Committee for leave to appeal, formulating as a question of law the following:

“Whether a High Court Master would only have the jurisdiction to make an order for the imprisonment of a judgment debtor who has been adjudged [bankrupt] under Order 49B rule 1B(1)(c) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) (‘RHC’) on the ground that he has wilfully failed to make full disclosure as required under Order 49B rule 1A(2) of the RHC if leave has been expressly sought and granted under section 12(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) for the judgment creditor to proceed with or commence an application for an order for the imprisonment of such debtor under Order 49B rule 1B(1)(c) of the RHC.”

3.  We are persuaded that leave to appeal should be granted in respect of that Question permitting the Court to examine the Court of Appeal’s approach to the jurisdiction issue which focused on the construction of the order giving leave to proceed; to consider the true construction of the applicable statutory provisions; and to address concerns regarding the impact of the order for imprisonment on personal liberty.

4.  The defendant’s reliance on the “or otherwise” ground adds nothing to the application.

5.  The hearing will be listed for hearing on 25^th November 2025 with the interim stay granted by Mr Justice Lam PJ on 8^th April 2025 extended until then.