RE ROTHWELL LAURENCE JAMES

HCB 7851/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 7851 OF 2025

________________

________________

__________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

__________________________________

1.  On 19 August 2026, I heard the substantive hearing of the Petition seeking a bankruptcy order in respect of the debtor, James Rothwell (“Mr Rothwell”).  On 2 September 2026, my Decision was handed down.  I ordered that the Petition be listed for hearing at 10am on 28 September 2026 before the Companies Judge, at which time a bankruptcy order would be pronounced unless, by 5pm on 19 September 2026, the debt had been settled in full.  In addition, I made a costs order nisi that Mr Rothwell pays the Petitioners’ costs on an indemnity basis.

2.  On 10 September 2026, Mr Rothwell issued a summons to set aside service of the Petition (“Set-Aside Summons”), which was made pursuant to an order made by Master Cruden on 13 February 2026 for substituted service (“Order”).  The Set-Aside Summons was listed for a hearing before Master Dick Ho on 23 September 2026.

3.  On 11 September 2026, Mr Rothwell issued another summons returnable before me seeking to vary the costs order nisi and seeking an adjournment of the pronouncement of the bankruptcy order on 28 September 2026 and an extension of the time to pay the debt until after the Set-Aside Summons has been determined.

4.  Plainly it too late to challenge the Order as the Petition has already been determined and the matters relied on by Mr Rothwell as the basis for this new application have been known to him since March 2026, at the latest.

5.  At the hearing on 19 August 2026, Mr Rothwell submitted that it was his position that the Order was unnecessary and should not have been made.  In paragraph 10 of his summary of his 95-page skeleton argument he suggests that the Order had been obtained by filing an affirmation containing “a false sworn premise” was void, his evidence about this remained unanswered and the substituted service order should be set aside.  However, Mr Rothwell had never issued a summons to set-aside the Order as demonstrated by the Set-Aside Summons, which was only issued after the determination of the Petition.  In response to a question from me on 19 August 2026, Mr Rothwell accepted that the Petition had been served in accordance with the Order and, as his presence at the hearing and the previous hearing of the Petition before me amply demonstrated, that he was fully aware of it.  Mr Rothwell did not ask at the hearing that the Order be set-aside.  His submissions in relation to substituted service were in the nature of a complaint; one of many in his manifestly excessive 95-page skeleton.

6.  I find it very difficult to accept that Mr Rothwell could seriously have thought that, if his opposition to the Petition was unsuccessful, he could, after my determination of the Petition, then apply to set aside the Order, thus requiring re-service.  In practice, it would be a waste of time, as the Court would already have determined the merits of the Petition.

7.  I dismissed paragraphs 3 and 4 of the summons dated 11 September 2026 but I extended the time for payment of the debt to 12 noon on 3 October 2026. The pronouncement of the bankruptcy order scheduled on 28 September 2026 be adjourned to 9:30am on 12 October 2026 before me.  The Debtor will pay the costs of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the summons on an indemnity basis.  His application is a waste of both the Petitioners and the Court’s time and resources. I ordered that the Petitioner shall serve its schedule of costs within 7 days and Mr Rothwell shall serve his comments 7 days thereafter and I will determine the costs on a gross sum basis.