RE CHEUNG SAU KING

HCB 2579/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO. 2579 OF 2012

------------------------

-------------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. There is an application by the Petitioner for leave to withdraw the Amended Petition filed on 21 June 2012. The reason being that the debt which underpinned the Amended Petition has now been satisfied.

2. The Petitioner was a judgment creditor of one Yi Lok Limited as the 1^st Defendant and the Debtor as the 2^nd Defendant by the order of Deputy High Court Judge Louis Chan dated 29 February 2012 awarded in HAC 55/2011.  It was a mortgagee action and the property in question (“Property”) was held by 1^st Defendant. Despite the judgment, the Petitioner was unable to obtain any satisfaction over the debt owed to it and was unable to obtain possession over the Property.

3. On 25 April 2012, the Bankruptcy Petition was filed against the Debtor.  On 26 July 2012, the Petitioner was able to successfully execute a Writ of Possession against the Property.  The Petitioner then took steps to have the Amended Petition withdrawn.

4. In the meantime, the Property was sold by the Petitioner (the assignment was dated 3 January 2013) and the debt in question was satisfied by part of the proceeds of sale.

5. This application is opposed by the Debtor who appears in person.  The Debtor has submitted to the court that the Petitioner had acted unreasonably by failing to respond to her request to discharge the legal charge over the Property made between the period from 25 October to 12 December 2012 by reason of a sale of the same (the contract of sale was dated 12 July 2012).  As a consequence of such unreasonable behaviour, the sale had not materialised and there is a difference between the sale price of that transaction (HK$15.5 million) and the price realised via the sale by the Petitioner (HK$12 million) of HK$3.5 million which represents a loss to her.  In addition, the Petition had hampered the Debtor’s ability to raise finance to discharge the judgment debt and has caused physiological damage to her.

6. I have carefully considered the matters advanced by the Debtor.  I do not believe that such matters impact upon the decision today.  What was said to this court by the Debtor is not entirely uncommon for people who had borrowed from establishments such as banks.  It may be that the Debtor has a cause of action in respect of the matters complained of.  That is something which has to be considered under legal advice.

7. As for the present application, I see no reason not to grant leave to the Petitioner to withdraw the Amended Petition.  I do so accordingly. I make no order as to the costs incurred to date in the Amended Petition, save and except to record that the Petitioner has agreed to bear the costs of the Official Receiver incurred to date.