RE CHAN WING CHI

HCB012514/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO. 12514 OF 2001

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is a petition by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited to bankrupt a debtor on the basis of the failure to comply with a statutory demand.

2. The statutory demand was dated 4 May 2000. According to an affirmation filed by the clerk to the petitioner's solicitors, he had attempted to serve the statutory demand on the debtor personally by calling at four addresses known to the petitioner as the debtor's usual and last known addresses in May 2000. As his attempts of service were unsuccessful, the statutory demand was advertised a year later in a newspaper on 31 May 2001. On 6 August 2001, the petitioner presented the bankruptcy petition and sought leave from the court to file the petition pursuant to r.49(9) of the Bankruptcy Rules. In September 2001, a Master raised the requisition with the petitioner's solicitors, asking whether there was any address of the debtor known to the petitioner apart from the four addresses. In November 2001, the petitioner's solicitors made an affirmation stating that he had been advised by the petitioner and verily believed that save for the four addresses as stated in the statutory demand and the draft petition, the petitioner was not aware of any other address of the debtor.

3. The debtor has filed an affirmation in opposition of the petition stating that this was not the case. He exhibited bank statements issued by the petitioner to him in December 2000 and September 2001, and they were sent to a fifth address being the residential address of the debtor at the time. In addition, the debtor was issued with a credit card of the petitioner and he had registered with the petitioner the fifth address as the address to which the credit card statements should be sent.

4. In view of this evidence, I am not satisfied that the petitioner had done all that is reasonable for the purpose of bringing the statutory demand to the debtor's attention, in compliance with r.46(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules. In my view, the service of the statutory demand was irregular, I therefore set aside the statutory demand and dismiss the petition with costs to the debtor.