有關 Wong Yuk Ming 的事宜

HCB 1519/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5420

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

民事司法管轄權

高院破產案件編號2026年第1519號

_________________

有關 :  WONG YUK MING (黃旭明) (“債務人”)  

有關呈請人的單方面申請:  ASSET PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED (富盛地產發展代理有限公司)

_________________

判 案 理 由 書

1.富盛地產發展代理有限公司 (“呈請人”) 於2026年3月5日針對黃旭明先生 (“債務人”) 提出破產呈請。

2.牽涉此破產呈請的債務是基於區域法院在案件DCCJ 2392/2025於2025年6月5日所頒發的缺席勝訴命令 (港幣600,000)，連同利息，以及訟費 (港幣1,280)。

3.債務人於庭上說，呈請人於DCCJ 2392/2025所提出的訴訟是毫無理據的，而他不應被判敗訴。

4.然而，於Re Tam Kwok Hung Johnson [2024] HKCFI 1573第 11段至第13段，高等法院原訟法庭法官陳靜芬指出：

「11. The Debtor did not comply with the SD and was deemed unable to pay his debts by virtue of s.6A(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6).

12. The burden is on the Debtor to show that there is a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds in respect of the Judgment Debt by adducing sufficiently precise evidence which is believable, and must establish that he has a defence of substance, not just a fair probability of one (Re Leung Cherng Jiunn [2016] 1 HKLRD 850, §27). For this purpose, it is not sufficient for the Debtor to merely raise ‘a cloud of objections on affidavits’ (Artech Development Ltd v Posismo Ltd [2018] HKCFI 344, §10(4)).

13. Where, as here the debt is based on a judgment, the court will treat the judgment as prima facie evidence that the debtor is indebted to the creditor. Although the bankruptcy court may in an appropriate case ‘go behind’ the judgment, it would only do so where the judgment is obtained by ‘fraud’, ‘collusion’ or that there is a ‘miscarriage of justice’ which impinges on the validity of the judgment (Re Tam Mei Kam, CACV 87/2012, 8 May 2013).

5.顯然，法庭於案件DCCJ 2329/2025所作出的命令是有效及可執行的。債務人沒有基礎於破產程序中就上述法庭命令提出挑戰，亦不能嘗試推翻法庭已作出了的裁決。

6.如上文提及，法庭早於2025年6月25日在 DCCJ 2329/2025中裁定呈請人勝訴，但到現在債務人依然沒有向法庭提出申請，嘗試撤銷缺席勝訴命令，延誤長達差不多15個月。本席認為債務人的行為不合理，未盡勤勉義務。

7.不論如何，債務人未能根據法庭於DCCJ 2329/2025所作出的命令向呈請人償還欠款，亦沒有提出任何還款建議。

8.因此，本席對債務人作出慣常的破產命令。

呈請人：由郭匡義律師行轉聘高忻亷大律師代表。

債務人：無律師代表，親自出庭應訊。