RE LIN YAN JENNY

HCB 5516/2018

[2022] HKCFI 2757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 5516 OF 2018

____________

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The bankruptcy order in this matter was made on 26 June 2019 after a contested hearing between the Petitioner and Ms Lin Yan Jenny (“the Bankrupt”), who was then legally represented: see [2019] HKCFI 1793.

2.  The background to this matter may be found in the above-mentioned decision, alongside the decisions of the Honourable Mr Justice G Lam (as he then was) in [2018] HKCFI 2084 and [2020] HKCFI 1227. I shall not repeat the same herein and gratefully adopt the summary of facts as appears in those decisions.

3.  On 23 May 2022, the Bankrupt, acting in person, issued a summons wherein:

(a) She cited S.83 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6), which provides that a bankrupt may apply to the court in relation to any act or decision of the trustee, and the court may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decisions complained of, and make such order in the premises as it thinks just.

(b) She further cited S.36 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200), which provides that any person who knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, false statutory declarations and other false statements without oath, shall be guilty of an offence.

(c) She alleged that the proof of debt by the Petitioner was a false assertion, and that she is willing to settle with him, and therefore the bankruptcy should be annulled.

(d) She complained that the Trustees have been taking excessive time and overcharging for their adjudication of claims and other duties, and that they should not be entitled to charge such sums.

4.  At the hearing before this Court on 5 September 2022, the Bankrupt repeated the above and reiterated her request for annulment essentially on the basis that the proof of debt was false and/or that she was willing to settle with the Petitioner. She further asked that the Court should find that the Petitioner and the Trustees were guilty of making false statements and false assertion of debts. She further alleged that the Petitioner and the Trustees had colluded so that the Trustees could continue to earn a substantial level of fees.

5.  I have reviewed the prior decisions and the papers filed to date in the matter. I consider the present application is plainly misconceived and seeks to rehash various points already dealt with in the prior decisions.

6.  Insofar as the various allegations about the Petitioner’s proof of debt are concerned, there is no new material of substance before the Court. Whilst the Bankrupt had taken various steps since the last decision (i.e. [2020] HKCFI 1227), such as by filing a police complaint, these essentially repeated a version or versions of the allegations she had previously put forward. Such allegations have been dealt with in the prior decisions, referenced above. There is nothing to suggest that the Trustees’ handling or consideration of the matter to date has been improper or contrary to the available evidence. There is no basis to suggest that their handling of the proofs of debt should be reversed or modified.

7.  As to the complaint about the fees of the Trustees, that is not a basis for annulment.

8.  As to the complaint about false statements levelled by the Bankrupt against the Petitioner, the Trustees, as well as another creditor, that is not a matter which this Court can deal with in the context of the summons. In any event, I do not consider the Bankrupt has put forward any evidence of cogency to support such serious allegations.

9.  In the premises, the summons is dismissed.