Re
|
HCMP 728/2026 [2026] HKCFI 4795 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 728 OF 2026 ___________________
___________________
_________________________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT __________________________________ 1.There is before the court an ex parte originating summons filed on 11 May 2026 by the joint and several trustees (“Trustees”) [1] of the property of [redacted] (“Bankrupt”) for an order that a letter of request in the form annexed thereto be issued to the High Court of England and Wales (“English Court”) seeking its assistance in aid of the administration of the Bankrupt’s estate. 2.At the hearing on 12 June 2026, this Court raised a number of queries regarding the application which had not been addressed by the Trustees including:
3.The application was adjourned sine die to allow the Trustees to clarify the position and adduce further evidence in support of the application. BACKGROUND 4.The Bankrupt is a Hong Kong resident and holds a Hong Kong Identity Card. 5.The Bankrupt was the sole shareholder and director of [redacted], a company incorporated in Hong Kong (“Company”). 6.On 7 July 2021, the Company was wound up by the court in Hong Kong. By order dated 15 December 2021, the Trustees were appointed as joint and several liquidators of the Company. 7.On 4 October 2024, the Company presented a bankruptcy petition against the Bankrupt in Hong Kong. On 20 May 2025, a bankruptcy order was made against the Bankrupt.[2] 8.At the General Meeting of Creditors held on 27 August 2025, it was resolved that the Trustees be appointed as joint and several trustees of the property of the Bankrupt.[3] 9.Following the appointment, the Trustees conducted investigations into the assets of the Bankrupt and commissioned an “Asset Trace Report” dated 27 February (“Report”). The Report identified the following assets located within the UK which may belong to the Bankrupt (collectively “Identified Assets”)[4]:
10.The Bankrupt did not attend the creditors’ meeting pursuant to s.26(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) (“BO”). Despite repeated demands from the Trustees, the Bankrupt failed to provide any information concerning his dealings, affairs or property.[6] DISCUSSION 11.The first issue which the court has to consider is whether the English Court may grant recognition of and assistance to the Trustees in the terms stated in the revised draft letter of request, which includes seeking assistance to enable the Trustees to take control of the Identified Assets. The application was made on the basis that as a result of the bankruptcy order and the appointment of the Trustees, the Identified Assets would be vested in the Trustees by virtue of s.58(2) of the BO. 12.In Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2025] AC 812, a trustee in bankruptcy appointed by the Russian court applied for recognition of a bankruptcy order made by the Russian court and the trustee’s appointment as the debtor’s trustee in bankruptcy and “such further relief as the court sees fit, including orders for the entrustment of” a property located in London held by the debtor (§15).
13.In the present case, the Trustees rely on s.426 of the Act on the basis that Hong Kong is a designated “relevant country or territory” for the purpose of that provision. Sections 426 provides that:
14.In the Schedule to The Co-operation of Insolvency Courts (Designation of Relevant Countries and Territories) Order 1986, Hong Kong is designated as one of the “relevant countries and territories” for the purpose of s.426 of the Act. 15.As Hong Kong is a designated territory for the purpose of s.426 of the Act, the English Court would in the exercise of its power under s.426 grant recognition and assistance to the Trustees to assist them in taking control over the Bankrupt’s assets including his rights and interests in the Property notwithstanding the immovables rule. Of course, whether the application may be acceded to and what relief should be granted is a matter for the English Court. 16.I am satisfied that for the purpose of assisting the English Court in considering the application for recognition and assistance, it is appropriate for the Hong Kong court to issue a letter of request, the wordings of which have been amended and approved by this Court. 17.As regards the HSBC UK Account, I accept the Trustees’ explanation that no request was made to HSBC UK for payment of the Funds due to their concern that the bank might inform the Bankrupt of the Trustees’ request (as part of its contractual duty owed to the client) such that the Funds might be gone before they are able to obtain any order from the English Court. 18.The Trustees accept that the ownership of the Vehicle is not clear as no public information is available regarding its ownership although the Report states that the Vehicle is owned by the Bankrupt and his wife. Since the Bankrupt has failed to provide any information relating to his assets, assistance from the English Court is required to determine whether the Bankrupt in fact holds any rights or interests in the Vehicle. 19.According to the Trustees’ investigation, the Property, the Funds and the Vehicle are the only identified assets of the Bankrupt, all of which are located in England. In the circumstances, it is necessary for the Trustees to seek recognition and assistance from the English Court so that they can properly discharge their duties and functions as trustees of the estate of the Bankrupt. 20.At the request of this Court, the Trustees have revised the terms of the draft letter of request to include (1) the correct particulars of each asset, including the details of their ownership; and (2) each power available to the Trustees, with the corresponding provisions under Hong Kong law. A table summarising the powers stated in the letter of request and the relevant provisions under the BO is included in Annex A. 21.For the reasons set out above, this Court made the following order:
Ms Hillary Yue, of Munros, for the Trustees
Annex A
[1] Mr Osman Mohammed Arab and Mr Wong Kwok Keung [2] Affirmation of Osman Mohammed Arab dated 8 May 2026 (“Arab 1st”) §§5-7 [3] Arab 1st §8 [4] Arab 1st §§10-11 [5] The address stated in the Report was wrong. The correct address was stated in §12(a) of the revised draft letter of request submitted to the court under cover of a letter dated 7 August 2026 [6] Arab 1st §9 [7] Which incorporates into the law of England and Wales and of Scotland the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error