PRACTICE DIRECTION - 3.6
OBJECTION TO DISCHARGE
FROM BANKRUPTCY UNDER
SECTION 30A(3) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ORDINANCE
This Practice Direction is issued in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Official Receiver, the trustee of the estate of Chan Kwok Keung, a bankrupt v. Chan Kwok Keung, a bankrupt [2008] 5 HKLRD 752, to minimize the prejudice that might be caused to a bankrupt by the de facto postponement of the date of his discharge.
1. While a trustee or a creditor ("the Objecting Party") may object to the discharge of a bankrupt as late as not less than 14 days before the end of the relevant period under Section 30A(6), he is expected to take out the necessary application promptly if there are sufficient grounds to justify such an application and not to wait until the last possible moment. The Objecting Party is also expected to take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure that the application is heard and disposed of upon an expedited basis.
2. The Objecting Party is required to set out, by way of affidavit, detailed grounds and evidence in support of the application and file the supporting affidavit with the application. Unless good and sufficient reasons are shown, no supplemental affidavit in support would be allowed to be filed.
3. The Court will set a tight timetable for the parties to file affidavit evidence in opposition and in reply, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the application will be listed for a substantive hearing as soon as practicable and strictly in accordance with the directions given by the Court.
4. An interim order to suspend the discharge pending the determination of the application will only be granted if the evidence before the Court justifies it, in that there are reasonable grounds for concluding that an order under Section 30A(3) would be made after the substantive hearing on the material placed before the Court. The interim order granted will only be for a short period of time so as to ensure that the Objecting Party will proceed with the application without delay.
5. Any unreasonable delay in proceeding with the application and any failure in complying with the directions of the Court may expose the Objecting Party, and his legal representative, if appropriate, to an adverse costs order.
This Practice Direction shall come into effect on 2 July 2010.
Dated this 22nd of June 2010.
|
(Andrew Li) |