Read the full judgment text of HCB 000941/1990 on BabelCite. This HCB judgment was delivered on 29 June 1994 before Rogers J.
Bankruptcy law – interim application by Official Receiver – Mareva Injunction – Prohibition Orders under Order 44A – cross-examination on affirmations – specific discovery – undertakings – bankruptcy of Chung Wong Kit. The Official Receiver, as trustee in bankruptcy of Chung Wong Kit, applied for several interim orders including leave to cross-examine the Respondents on their affirmations, specific discovery of bank accounts, extension of the Mareva Injunction as against the 2nd and 5th Respondents to cover additional properties, and extension of the Prohibition Orders. The court found the Official Receiver had made out a prima facie case that the bankrupt had come by a great deal of money which appeared to have been channelled through the 6th to 9th Respondent companies and more directly to the 1st to 5th Respondents (family members). First issue: whether to grant leave to cross-examine the Respondents on their affirmations — held: application adjourned sine die with liberty to restore; cross-examination to a limited extent may be allowed if the Respondents fail to comply with the 13th May disclosure order after adequate time, given the danger of unfair advantage in cross-examining before the main hearing. Second issue: whether to order specific discovery of bank accounts — held: no extension required, as the discovery sought was already within the scope of the 13th May order, and expanding orders carries the danger that parties will overlook their original obligations. Third issue: whether to extend the Mareva Injunction to cover property outside the jurisdiction (2nd Respondent) and property within Hong Kong (5th Respondent) — held: no extension needed; undertakings from the 2nd and 5th Respondents to keep 50% of sale proceeds in a special account and to notify the Official Receiver of any sale would provide sufficient protection, and extending the injunction outside the jurisdiction carries its own complications. Fourth issue: whether to extend the Prohibition Orders, particularly against the 5th Respondent alleged to be about to emigrate — held: no extension; the 5th Respondent's intended departure was a technicality amounting to an annual vacation with her husband who was a director of a publicly listed company in Hong Kong, and the amount at stake against her was comparatively small; no basis was shown for making Prohibition Orders against the other Respondents apart from one who would be travelling on business. Outcome: interim application adjourned, no extension of cross-examination, specific discovery, Mareva Injunction, or Prohibition Orders, with undertakings given in respect of the properties to provide equivalent protection to the Official Receiver.
Legal issues: Whether to grant leave to cross-examine respondents on their affirmations · Whether to order specific discovery of bank accounts · Whether to extend the Mareva Injunction to include further properties · Whether to extend the Prohibition Orders against the Respondents
Outcome: Interim application adjourned; cross-examination application adjourned sine die with liberty to restore; no extension of specific discovery order or Mareva Injunction; undertakings given in lieu for the properties; Prohibition Orders not extended.