Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung
Read the full judgment text of CACV 577/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 November 2021.
1. On 8 July 2021, this court gave a judgment (“ the CA Judgment ”) dismissing the appeal of Charles Cheung Hing-chik (“ the bankrupt ”) from the judgment of Au-yeung J given on 28 September 2020 (“ the CFI Judgment ”) dismissing the bankrupt’s application filed on 14 August 2020 for rescission of a bankruptcy order made on 3 August 2020.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 577/2020 [2021] HKCA 1625 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 577 OF 2020 (ON APPEAL FROM HCB NO 1901 OF 2020) ________________________
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 8 July 2021, this court gave a judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the appeal of Charles Cheung Hing-chik (“the bankrupt”) from the judgment of Au-yeung J given on 28 September 2020 (“the CFI Judgment”) dismissing the bankrupt’s application filed on 14 August 2020 for rescission of a bankruptcy order made on 3 August 2020. 2.1.On 5 August 2021, the bankrupt filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 2.2.Directions were given for written submissions which have been filed and which we have considered. 3.The bankrupt’s proposed grounds of appeal deal with the adequacy of evidence supporting his proposal to sell his shares in two companies. These grounds relate to the judge’s decision that he had not adduced sufficient evidence to support his application for rescission of the bankruptcy order, and are case-specific. 4.As for the bankrupt’s submission that his proposed appeal raises 5 issues of great general and public importance, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th issues are case-specific, and the 1st and 5th issues are general questions which were not pertinent to the CA Judgment. In particular regarding the 5th issue, there was no ground of appeal before this court regarding the impact of the pandemic on any proposed transaction between the bankrupt and the late Mr Lagahit. 5.For the reasons above, the bankrupt has not satisfied the requirements of s.22(1)(b) Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap.484, and we dismiss the application for leave with costs to the respondent/petitioner.
The debtor (bankrupt), unrepresented, acting in person Ms Prisca Cheung, instructed by Kok & Ha, for the creditor (petitioner) |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 577/2020