RE CHEN RAY

HCB 2146/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO. 2146 OF 2004

____________

___________

R U L I N G

___________

1. Having heard arguments of the parties, including that of Mr Chen, for reasons given below on the merits of Mr Chen's case, I do not see how his proposed evidence could take his case further.

2. Bearing in mind the history of the case and the nature of Mr Chen's grounds of opposition, I do not think the matter should be delayed further. I therefore refuse to adjourn the case to enable Mr Chen to file further evidence.

3. As regards DCCJ2014 of 2004, since the allegations raised in that action are similar to those raised in these proceedings, I am in as good a position to assess the merits of Mr Chen's claim in that action as the District Court. The claim had been struck out by the master and Mr Chen's attempt to set aside that order had failed.

4. Whilst he is appealing against that order, having considered the material before me and the submissions by the parties, I do not regard the allegations of Mr Chen as meritorious. The evidence put forward by the petitioner in the affirmation of Chan Pak-keung shows clearly that the claim by Mr Chen based on lack of legal aid for the section 17 application is without foundation in law and in fact. He was quite clearly aware of the lack of legal aid, hence his fresh legal aid application and appeal after refusal by the Director of Legal Aid. (See paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affirmation of Chan Pak-keung).

5. Further, I agree with Miss Ho's submissions that it is difficult to see how Judge Saunders could reach any other decision in the section 17 application, even if Mr Chen was legally represented, bearing in mind his Honour's view on the credibility of Mr Chen in the main trial in EO3 of 2000. It cannot be denied that credibility of Mr Chen is very much in issue in those proceedings.

6. As regards the allegation by Mr Chen that he had been assured by Edmond Chan that the Director of Legal Aid would not enforce the section 17 order, that is simply incapable of being believed. Despite the letter of demand dated 28 January 2003 and the statutory demand of 3 July 2003, the respondent did nothing in relation to the order of Judge Saunders. His assertion this morning that he did not take these documents seriously is again unbelievable.

7. I therefore refuse Mr Chen's request for adjournment and having concluded that Mr Chen has no merit in his opposition to the bankruptcy petition, I make the usual bankruptcy order with costs.