RE VINCENT KAY LO IP

cacv 117/2006

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 117 of 2006

(on appeal from HCB NO. 1209 of 2000)

_____________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.  This is an appeal from a judgment of Chung J given on 27 February this year.  He was dealing with the third application by Dr Ip to set aside the Bankruptcy Order which had been made on 14 August 2000.

2.  The basis of this application was that there was said to have been disclosure confidential letters written by the bankrupt’s solicitors to the bankrupt at the time when the bankruptcy proceedings were on foot and prior to the Bankruptcy Order being made.  The burden of the bankrupt’s submissions in this Court was that his confidentiality had been breached prior to the making of the Bankruptcy Order.  It was clear that it had not been but, nevertheless, during the course of this hearing, the court files were searched and it was found that these letters were passed to the Official Receiver by the bankrupt’s former solicitors after the Bankruptcy Order had been made in order to verify the bill of costs which the solicitors had put in.  They demonstrated the work which the solicitors had done in the course of representing the bankrupt and for which they were charging.

3.  There is no question of the bankrupt’s confidentiality having been breached in this respect.  In any event, these letters do not harm the bankrupt save to show this, that he was well aware of the proceedings that were going on; he was well aware that following the judgment of this Court of 31 July 2000, the amount that he owed Dr Koh had been reduced from 1.5 million to 1.17 million, but that it was likely that a bankruptcy order would be made.

4.  Of course, when bankruptcy orders are sought, the Court is careful.  There are various technical rules which have to be complied with and it appears that adjournments had to be accorded so that the rules could be complied with properly.  Nevertheless, the Court dispensed with service.  It dispensed with service for the very proper reason that the bankrupt was, at that stage, represented by solicitors and when the bankruptcy petition eventually came to be heard on 14 August 2000, the judge recorded that the solicitors said that they could not oppose the making of the Bankruptcy Order.

5.  At the end of the day, there is simply nothing in this appeal.  It was a complete waste of time.  This Court has considered whether or not an order should be made in respect of Dr Ip to prevent any further applications being made to court without leave.  In my view, the time has come when the Court must now seriously consider that.  However, it seems that perhaps the best course would be to leave the matter as it is, but to indicate that in this judgment so that, if Dr Ip chooses to make any further similar applications to the Court of First Instance, the judge may consider that.  Hopefully the Official Receiver would give the court assistance in respect of an application for such an order should the circumstances arise that such an order becomes appropriate.

6.  Therefore, this appeal should be dismissed.

Hon Tang JA:

7.  I agree.

Hon Barma J:

8.  I also agree.