RE CHU HOI YAN CANDY t/a CROSSO

HCB 4325/2021

[2021] HKCFI 3066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 4325 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  By a petition presented on 28 July 2021, the Director of Legal Aid (“DLA”) seeks a bankruptcy order against Ms Chu Hoi Yan Candy (“Debtor”) on the ground that the Debtor failed to pay HK$223,622.37 (“Debt”), being the taxed costs due on the order dated 14 October 2019 against the Debtor in DCCJ 5369 of 2015 (“Action”) and subsequently taxed at HK$195,524 as shown in the Allocatur dated 6 January 2021, together with interest calculated at judgment rate from 14 October 2019 up to the date of the petition.

2.  Pursuant to Regulation 9(6A) of the Legal Aid Regulation (Cap 91A), the DLA has the right to enforce the costs order made in favour of the plaintiff in the Action, who is an aided person for which the DLA has issued a certificate.

3.  By a statutory demand served on the Debtor personally on 16 June 2021, requiring the Debtor to pay the Debt. The Debtor did not comply with nor set aside the statutory demand. The DLA therefore presented the petition on 28 July 2021 and served the same on the Debtor on 13 August 2021.

4.  To date, the Debtor has failed to comply with the statutory demand or pay any part of the Debt.

5.  It is well established that the burden is on the debtor to satisfy the Court that there is a bona fide dispute on substantial ground in respect of the debt by adducing sufficiently precise evidence which is believable and must establish that he/she has a defence of substance, not just a fair probability of one.

6.  The Debtor set out her grounds of opposition to the petition in a notice of objection filed on 26 September 2021. In short, the Debtor repeats the dispute between her and the plaintiff in the Action even through such dispute has already been determined by the Court in the Action and there is no appeal against the order made by the Court. The Debtor has not articulated any valid basis to impugn the costs order made by the Court, which remains binding upon her.

7.  Section 6(2)(c) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) provides that if the debtor appears either to be unable to pay the debt or have no reasonable prospect of being able to pay his debt, the petitioner may present a bankruptcy petition against the debtor. By virtue of section 6A(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, the debtor is deemed to be unable to pay the debt if 3 weeks have elapsed since the statutory demand was served and the debtor has failed to comply with or set aside the statutory demand.

8.  Section 9(2) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance provides that if the Court is satisfied with the proof of the creditor and the service of the petition, it may make a bankruptcy order against the debtor.

9.  In the present case, the Debt on which the statutory demand and the petition is based is a judgment debt payable by the Debtor immediately. The Debtor has not adduced any evidence to show that there is a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds in respect of the Debt.

10.  It is in the circumstances appropriate to make a usual bankruptcy order against the debtor, and I so order.