Lau Gai Cheung t/a Triton Trading Co. and Another v. International Bank of Asia Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCSD 2/1999 on BabelCite. This HCSD judgment was delivered on 28 July 1999.
1. A statutory demand was served on Lau Gai Cheung on 8th January 1999 for the sum of $9,806,979.29. He applied on 29th January 1999 to set that statutory demand aside. He put forward 2 grounds, namely, that the amount of the debt in question was disputed because two payments totalling $1.1 million had previously been paid and secondly, because he the security held by the International Bank of Asia Limited, the Respondent, was of a value exceeding the amount of the debt.
|
HCSD000002/1999 HCSD 2/99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO. HCSD 2 OF 1999 _______________
________________ Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Ribeiro in Chambers Date of Hearing: 28 July 1999 Date of decision: 28 July 1999 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1. A statutory demand was served on Lau Gai Cheung on 8th January 1999 for the sum of $9,806,979.29. He applied on 29th January 1999 to set that statutory demand aside. He put forward 2 grounds, namely, that the amount of the debt in question was disputed because two payments totalling $1.1 million had previously been paid and secondly, because he the security held by the International Bank of Asia Limited, the Respondent, was of a value exceeding the amount of the debt. 2. After an amendment made to the statutory demand because of a technical slip in its formulation, the Respondent took out today's summons to dismiss the Applicant's application to set aside. It has filed evidence aimed at meeting the two grounds mentioned above. However, the Applicant has not appeared today and has filed no evidence in rebuttal. 3. The evidence of the bank is that the sums repaid have already been taken into account in calculating with debt and that the amount claimed is correct. 4. As to the value of the mortgaged property in question, namely, mortgaged premises in Silvercord, the bank has obtained a recent valuation which puts its value at $4.8 million which is considerably less than the debt in question. In the circumstances, the bank submits, and I accept, that the two grounds put forward by the Applicant are without substance. 5. I am satisfied accordingly that none of the four grounds for setting aside the statutory demand listed in rule 48(5) of the Bankruptcy Rules applies to present case. 6. Accordingly, I Order that the application to set aside the statutory demand be dismissed and that the Respondent be at liberty to proceed with presentation of the bankruptcy petition. Costs of this application to the Respondent.
Representation: Mr. Richard Leung instructed by M/s Haldanes for Respondent Mr. Lau Gai Cheung trading as Triton Trading Co. acting in person - absent |