RE WONG CHEE KWONG AUSTIN

HCB 1042/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

IN BANKRUPTCY

____________________

___________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The Petition herein was presented on 30th September 1998 in respect of a judgment entered against the Debtor in August 1998.

2. The Debtor had previously applied for an adjournment to enable him to set aside that judgment. That application was acceded to.

3. Subsequently in the action, there was a Tomlin Order in June 1999 whereby the Debtor by consent agreed that in full and final settlement of the proceedings including interest and costs, the judgment be set aside and proceedings stayed on condition and provided that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff the following sums on the following dates:- first, HK$200,000.00 on 30th June 1999 and HK$200,000.00 subsequently at the end of July, August and September 1999, failing which it was agreed that the judgment would be reinstated and stand in full and be enforceable in full by the Plaintiff.

4. However, none of those amounts of HK$200,000.00 each has been paid.

5. The Debtor has said today that that was because he was unable to obtain finance in June, because he had only resumed employment that month.

6. In August of this year, there was an order, after argument, reinstating the judgment in the proceedings.

7. Today is the hearing of the Petition. The Debtor has not produced any evidence whatsoever to support his allegation that there is a prospect that he could make some payment of the judgment debt. He has alleged that he would be able to obtain finance from a bank, but he says that he has neglected to bring documentary evidence in support. It is difficult for me to accept that excuse because as a solicitor, the Debtor would have known that he should have brought all relevant documents to Court in support of such an application for a stay. And even if he had neglected to bring them this morning at 9:45 a.m. when this matter was due to be heard (and indeed was heard) the Debtor has since had nearly two hours to get his house in order, as I adjourned the hearing to 11:30 a.m. and it is now 11:45.

8. In the circumstances, there are insufficient grounds before me to show why the Bankruptcy Order should not be made and therefore I would accordingly make the usual Bankruptcy Order.