Lee Chick Choi v. Wong Ka Sek and Wong Ka Lam King,The Joint and Several Trustees of the Property ofLee Chick Choi, A Bankrupt

HCB 1128/2015

[2019] HKCFI 1432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 1128 OF 2015

________________

________________

________________

DECISION

________________

1.I have before me two applications taken out by Mr Lee Chick Choi (“the Applicant”). The first is a summon taken out on 22 May 2019 (“the Summons”) under which the Applicant sought the following order from this court:

“ The Trustees to issue a letter of No Objection for my automatice [sic]

discharge which was due on 18^th May 2019 under Section 30A of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap.6) when I am having a pending application for leave to appeal in FAMV51/2018 in the Court of Final Appeal closely related with the Trustees’ consent in question for my claim of HK$14,475,849.00 under Section 66 of PDPO which is a precedent case in HKSAR, and/or issue a certificate of discharge by a Judge.”

2.What happened was that on 21 May 2019, the Applicant’s wife went to the office of the Trustees in Bankruptcy to obtain a No Objection Letter for the Applicant so that the Applicant would be able to apply to court for a certificate of discharge.

3.Mr Chong, the person in charge of the matter, was taking sick leave on 21 May 2019.  Accordingly, a member of staff of the Trustees in Bankruptcy, advised the Applicant’s wife to make a call to Mr Chong the next day to make further arrangement.

4.The Applicant and/or his wife did not make a call to Mr Chong the next day. Instead, he took out the Summons.  Mr Yung who appears for the Trustees in Bankruptcy today submits that the Trustees in Bankruptcy did not even know that the woman who appeared in their office is the Applicant’s wife.

5.On 27 May 2019, Mr Chong called the Applicant and asked him whether he would like to come to their office to collect the No Objection Letter.  The Applicant said that he has already issued a summons and did not go to the office of the Trustees in Bankruptcy to collect the No Objection Letter.

6.Accordingly, the No Objection Letter was posted to the Applicant which he duly received on 29 May 2019, one day before today’s hearing.

7.First, as the Applicant has already received the No Objection Letter, there is no need for this court to make an order in terms of the Summons and the Applicant did not press for the same.  Basically, the Summons has been rendered academic.

8.Secondly, the Trustees in Bankruptcy ask for dismissal of the application with costs.  I agree.  The Summons is now formally dismissed.  As far as costs is concerned, it is obvious to this court when the Applicant was informed that the No Objection Letter was ready for his collection on 27 May 2019, he should not have insisted to proceed with the present hearing.  Court’s time and resources are limited.  The Applicant should either go to the office of the Trustees in Bankruptcy to collect the No Objection Letter or wait for the arrival of the same by post.  Today’s hearing can be avoided if the Applicant adopts a sensible and reasonable approach.  To insist that as a summons has been issued and therefore it has to be heard is incorrect.  The Applicant should have agreed with the Trustees in Bankruptcy to vacate the present hearing instead of incurring further costs.  A consent summons would have saved both costs and time.

9.Accordingly, I make an order that the Applicant is to pay the costs of the Trustees in Bankruptcy to be taxed, if not agreed, on a party to party basis.

10.Today, the Applicant also takes out a new application seeking acertificate of discharge pursuant to rule 92 of the Bankruptcy Rules, Cap 6A. 

11.The Trustees in Bankruptcy have no objection to a certificate of discharge under rule 92 of the Bankruptcy Rules being issued to the Applicant.  There are no other circumstances which indicate that a certificate of discharge should not be issued.

12.In the circumstances, the application for a certificate of discharge under rule 92 is granted.

The applicant appeared in person

Mr Isaac Yung, instructed by Jimmie K S Wong & Partners, for the respondents

Attendance of the Official Receiver was excused