Re Lee Sing Leung Robin
|
HCB 4396/2026 [2026] HKCFI 5649 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 4396 OF 2026 ________________
________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ 1.The ground of opposition or the ground for adjournment is that there are pending appeals against my decision to dismiss the debtor’s application to set aside the statutory demands. There is no appeal against the underlying judgment. I adopt my decision handed down on 5 June 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 3153) in the dismissal of the Debtor’s applications to set aside the statutory demands, and I also gratefully agree with DHCJ KC Chan’s decision in HCA 346/2024 ([2026] HKCFI 4411) handed down on 10 August 2026, being the underlying action and dismissing the appeal. So, there is no merit in the underlying dispute. Today, the Debtor asks for adjournment based on a medical report that he may have mild psychomotor retardation and mild cognitive impairment, but has to undergo an investigation period of 12-16 weeks. However, the medical certificate is short of any opinion that the Debtor is mentally incapable, and in fact, the Debtor has been able before me to make detailed submissions with references to the documents, and even refers to previous hearings and what happened in the pervious hearings. He is also able to point out the time difference between Canada where his sister (who he alleges helps him prepare the documents for the present Petition) lives and Hong Kong. He is also able to understand what has been prepared for him over the phone with his sister before he signed the documents, according to what he told me in court. I see no ground for adjournment. Therefore, I see it appropriate to make a usual bankruptcy order in the proceedings.
Mr Raymond Ho, instructed by C.T. Chan & Co., for the Judgment Creditor The Judgment Debtor appeared in person Mr Jacky Chan, of Official Receiver’s Office, for the Official Receiver |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment