Re Vincent Kay Lo Ip

HCB 1209/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCYPROCEEDINGS NO. 1209 OF 2000

____________

Re: VINCENT KAY LO IP

Ex Parte: ANDREW KEE SUAN KOH

____________

Before: Hon Chung J in Court

Date of Hearing: 27 February 2006

Date of Judgment: 27 February 2006

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 2 March 2006

__________________________________

REASONS  FOR  JUDGMENT

__________________________________

1.This is an application brought by the debtor purportedly pursuant to s. 33(1)(a), Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) the relevant parts of which read:-

“The court may annul a bankruptcy order if it at any time appears to the court that …on any grounds existing at the time the order was made, the order ought not to have been made”.

I dismissed this application indicating that reasons for doing so would be handed down later.  They are as follows.

2.The main difficulty which the debtor faces in this application is the undisputed fact that he has already taken out two similar applications earlier.  Both applications have been dismissed.

3.The first application was a summons dated 3 February 2004 which sought the following relief:-

“… annul a bankruptcy order in relation to Chapter 6 Section 33 Subsection (1) … ”.

That summons was dismissed by Deputy Judge Poon on 29 March 2004.

4.The second application was a summons dated 23 August 2004.  The relief sought therein must have been worded along the lines of s. 33(1)(a) and (b), Cap. 6.  That summons was dismissed by Yam J on 16 September 2004.

5.No appeal has been lodged against those orders and they remain valid and subsisting.

6.When the debtor was queried regarding why he considered the law to permit him to take out this application despite the dismissal of the said 2 summonses, he was in short unable to put forth any valid reason.

7.What the debtor relied upon was the claim that he discovered in around February 2005 that the amended petition was not served on him.  He also referred to an order of the registrar dated 31 July 2000 which he claimed was not served on him either by the time of the bankruptcy order (made by me on 14 August 2000).  The registrar’s order dispensed with service of the amended petition.

8.Irrespective of whether the matter summarized in para. 7 above constituted a sufficient ground to make a s. 33(1) application, the court of first instance has already dealt with such application, and cannot be asked to deal with it again.  But having heard the debtor to the extent I permitted him at the hearing of this application and having read the materials he put forth, I considered that there is no merit in this application in any event.

9.In case it is necessary to know of the history of the court proceedings since the making of the bankruptcy order, it is set out below.  The bankruptcy order dated 14 August 2000 was made in the presence of, and after hearing submissions from, the debtor’s solicitor.  The debtor’s subsequent application for leave to use the official receiver’s name to appeal against the bankruptcy order (allowed by the court of first instance) was refused by the court of appeal on 23 February 2001.  His application to the court of final appeal for leave was dismissed on 24 April 2001.

Mr Vincent Kay Lo Ip acts in person and present

Not appearing of Official Receiver’s Office