RE WONG YAM TAK

HCB 4489/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 4489 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  This is a bankruptcy petition presented by the Petitioner (Galaxy Casino SA) against the Debtor on 26 July 2019 pursuant to a statutory demand served on the Debtor personally on 4 December 2018 for the amount of HK$2,909,359.34, comprising the principal debt of HK$1,984,000 and interest thereon at 8% per annum from 30 January 2013 to 28 November 2018.

2.  The statutory demand was based on a judgment which the Petitioner obtained against the Debtor on 27 September 2018 from Master Lui in HCA 195/2013 (“the Judgment”) as a result of the Debtor’s failure to comply with an Unless Order of Master Lui dated 6 September 2018 (“the Unless Order”) requiring him to file an affidavit to verify his list of documents dated 23 August 2013.  The Applicant has not filed any appeal against the Judgment, and the time for any appeal has long expired.

3.  At the hearing this morning, the Debtor said that his alleged debt to the Petitioner arose as a result of a fraud practised on him by a person called Leung Su Keong (“Mr Leung”), who caused him to sign a credit agreement for credit facilities to the extent of HK$2,000,000 for gaming at Galaxy Macau Casino in Macau, and a cheque (subsequently dishonoured) in the amount of HK$2,000,000 as security for the said credit facilities.  The Debtor said that he had made a report to the Macau police which led to the prosecution of Mr Leung, and he gave evidence as a prosecution witness at a trial in January 2019.  However, he did not know the result of the prosecution.  When the court asked the Debtor whether he had made any inquiry about the result of the prosecution, the Debtor said that he had not because he thought that he would be notified of the result of the prosecution by the prosecuting authority in Macau.

4.  There is no evidence before the court to show that Mr Leung had any connection with the Petitioner, or that the alleged fraud of Mr Leung should be attributed to the Petitioner.  The Debtor has given no good explanation for his failure to comply with the Unless Order, or his failure to lodge any appeal against the Judgment.  The Judgment is currently binding on the Debtor.  There is nothing before the court to suggest that the Debtor has any reasonable ground to seek an extension of time to appeal the Judgment, or any reasonable prospect of success of such appeal (assuming that time to appeal is extended by the court).  This court is, in any event, not prepared to accept the Debtor’s bare assertions which are not verified by affidavit.

5.  In all the circumstances, the court is not satisfied that the Debtor has a bona fide defence on substantial ground as to the existence or amount of the petitioning debt.  Accordingly, the court makes the usual bankruptcy order with costs against the Debtor.