Re 伍伸俊 also known as Wu Shenjun or Wu Sonny

HCB 1747/2020

[2021] HKCFI 824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 1747 OF 2020

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

1.This Bankruptcy Petition is based upon a judgment debt which came into existence on 30 July 2019. There is no dispute over the Debt. The Debtor’s position has always been that reasonable arrangement can be made for the repayment of the Debt.

2.Shortly before this hearing, the Debtor has jettisoned his repayment proposal based on a settlement agreement. Instead, he is now seeking to rely upon an Arbitral Award made in favour of two corporate entities to which he appears to have an interest, and he seeks to rely upon a new affirmation for this hearing.  

3.Putting aside the lateness of the evidence and whether the lateness can be justified, I am in agreement with the Petitioner that the evidence does not properly justify any delay in granting the bankruptcy order sought.

4.I bear in mind the principles adumbrated in Ho Ying Pat Bobby v Overseas Way (China) Ltd [2011] 2 HKLRD, §12-16, as well as Re Ho Sik Tung Terry (debtor) [2012] 5 HKLRD 777, § 10.

5.Although the Debtor’s new evidence is to the effect that the financial benefit of about USD90 million to be derived from the Arbitral Award far exceeds the Debt, there is no evidence as to the ability or willingness of the paying party to honour the Award.  Indeed, no information has been provided as to the background of that party, whether it is one of financial strength and how the Award may be enforced against it. 

6.Further, the evidence as to why and how the Debtor will be entitled to benefit from the Award is convoluted and impossible to understand.  The court must bear in mind that the companies entitled to the Award may have creditors who may lay claims to the benefit of the Award.

7.This Petition was issued back in May 2020.  It is trite that a bankruptcy petition should be resolved without delay.  The delay here must be prejudicial to the Petitioner who is kept out of its money, and any action which may be taken to recover the Debtor’s assets, eg, by reason of unfair preference, cannot begin without a bankruptcy order.

8.In the premises, I see no proper reason to allow the admission of new evidence or the Debtor’s application to have this hearing adjourned. Consequently, I make the usual bankruptcy order with costs to the Petitioner.

Mr Justin Lam and Ms Sakinah Sat, instructed by Jones Day, for the Petitioner

Mr Martin Kok, instructed by Kirkland & Ellis, for the Debtor