破產人未配合，可否暫緩解除破產？？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：RE: LEE RAYMOND CHO-MIN (ALSO KNOWN AS RAYMOND CHO-MIN LEE AND ALSO KNOWN AS LEE CHO MIN RAYMOND) AND RE: LEE PRISCILLA HWANG (ALSO KNOWN AS PRISCILLA HWANG LEE) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、袁家寧上訴法官、關淑馨上訴法官 - 判決日期：2014年7月8日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩名破產人（丈夫Raymond Cho Min Lee及妻子Priscilla Hwang Lee，統稱「破產人」）就其破產解除暫緩令提出的上訴。破產人於2009年8月31日被頒布破產令。根據《破產條例》(Bankruptcy Ordinance, Cap 6) 第30A(1)及(2)(a)條，他們本應於2013年8月30日獲解除破產。然而，破產受託人（「受託人」）於2013年7月26日根據《破產條例》第30A(3)條申請暫緩解除破產，理由是破產人未有配合管理其資產，且其行為（破產令頒布前後）均不令人滿意。原訟法庭聆案官裁定受託人勝訴，並暫緩解除破產，丈夫為18個月，妻子為15個月。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於破產人是否未能配合管理其資產，以及其行為（破產令頒布前後）是否不令人滿意，從而支持暫緩解除破產的命令。破產人爭辯受託人未能確立任何指控理由；即使確立，法庭亦不應行使酌情權頒布暫緩令；即使應頒布暫緩令，暫緩期亦應縮短。受託人則指控破產人於破產前提取500萬港元支付個人開支，以及在破產後於美國訴訟中阻撓受託人追討資產，並延遲提供文件。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭重申，處理暫緩解除破產申請應分兩階段：首先確定《破產條例》第30A(4)條所列理由是否成立；若成立，則行使酌情權決定是否頒布暫緩令，並考慮所有情況，包括行為性質、破產後行為，以及破產人復原與公共利益的平衡。法庭裁定，破產人於破產前將500萬港元轉移至其控制的公司以支付個人開支，構成不滿意行為。此外，破產人在美國訴訟中積極阻撓受託人追討資產，而非保持中立，亦構成未能配合及不滿意行為。儘管法庭推翻了關於未提供家庭和解協議 (Global Settlement Agreement) 的指控，但認為其餘理由足以支持聆案官的酌情決定。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Re Wong Hing Wah Michael, a bankrupt HCB26018/2002 (第6段) 及 Fred Lee v Lau Chi Kam [2008] 3 HKLRD 627 (第6段) 確立暫緩解除破產申請的兩階段審理原則。此外，Tang Kai Mo v Fred Lee [2009] 1 HKLRD 87 (第7段) 被引用以闡明破產前行為須達「嚴重」程度方可暫緩，但無需「特別嚴重」。Lau Chi Kam (第8段) 則定義了「不滿意」破產前行為的測試標準。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回破產人的上訴。儘管法庭推翻了聆案官關於未提供家庭和解協議的指控，但認為這並未影響聆案官行使酌情權的整體決定。法庭維持對丈夫Raymond Cho Min Lee暫緩解除破產18個月，以及對妻子Priscilla Hwang Lee暫緩解除破產15個月的命令。破產人須支付上訴訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調破產人有積極協助受託人追討資產的法定責任，而非僅保持中立。即使破產人聲稱是根據法律意見行事，法庭仍會審視該意見是否合理可辯，以判斷其行為是否構成未能配合或不滿意行為。判決亦重申，在破產程序中，破產人不得以其對其他股東的受信責任為由，阻撓受託人履行職責。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: RE: LEE RAYMOND CHO-MIN (ALSO KNOWN AS RAYMOND CHO-MIN LEE AND ALSO KNOWN AS LEE CHO MIN RAYMOND) AND RE: LEE PRISCILLA HWANG (ALSO KNOWN AS PRISCILLA HWANG LEE) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, Yuen JA, Kwan JA - Date of Judgment: 8 July 2014 ### Factual Background This case concerns appeals by two bankrupts (husband Raymond Cho Min Lee and wife Priscilla Hwang Lee, collectively "the Bankrupts") against orders suspending their discharge from bankruptcy. Bankruptcy orders were made against them on 31 August 2009. They would have been discharged on 30 August 2013 under section 30A(1) and (2)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, Cap 6. However, the Trustees in bankruptcy ("the Trustees") applied on 26 July 2013 under section 30A(3) BO to suspend their discharge, citing failure to cooperate in the administration of their estates and unsatisfactory conduct both before and after the bankruptcy orders. The Master of the Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the Trustees, suspending the husband's discharge for 18 months and the wife's for 15 months. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were whether the Bankrupts failed to cooperate in the administration of their estates and whether their conduct, both pre- and post-bankruptcy, was unsatisfactory, thereby warranting a suspension of discharge. The Bankrupts argued that the Trustees failed to establish any grounds, or that even if established, the court should not have exercised its discretion to suspend discharge, or that the suspension periods should be reduced. The Trustees alleged pre-bankruptcy withdrawal of HK$5 million for personal expenses and post-bankruptcy obstruction in US proceedings to recover assets, along with delays in providing documents. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal reiterated that applications for suspension of discharge from bankruptcy involve a two-stage process: first, determining if grounds under section 30A(4) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance are established; second, exercising discretion considering all circumstances, including the nature of the acts, post-bankruptcy conduct, and balancing the bankrupt's rehabilitation with public interest. The court found that the Bankrupts' pre-bankruptcy transfer of HK$5 million to their controlled company for personal expenses constituted unsatisfactory conduct. Furthermore, their active obstruction, rather than neutrality, in US proceedings to recover assets also amounted to failure to cooperate and unsatisfactory conduct. While the court overturned the finding regarding the failure to provide the Global Settlement Agreement, it held that the remaining grounds justified the Master's discretionary decision. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Re Wong Hing Wah Michael, a bankrupt HCB26018/2002 (para. 14) and Fred Lee v Lau Chi Kam [2008] 3 HKLRD 627 (para. 10) were cited to establish the two-stage approach for suspension applications. Tang Kai Mo v Fred Lee [2009] 1 HKLRD 87 (paras. 30-32) clarified that pre-bankruptcy conduct must be grave, but not "exceptionally" grave, to warrant suspension. Lau Chi Kam (para. 10) provided the test for determining "unsatisfactory" pre-bankruptcy conduct. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the Bankrupts' appeals. Although the court overturned the Master's finding regarding the failure to provide the Global Settlement Agreement, it concluded that this did not affect the overall exercise of discretion. The orders suspending the discharge from bankruptcy for Raymond Cho Min Lee for 18 months and Priscilla Hwang Lee for 15 months were upheld. The Bankrupts were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. ### Key Takeaways This judgment emphasizes a bankrupt's positive statutory duty to actively assist trustees in realizing assets, not merely to remain neutral. Even if a bankrupt claims to have acted on legal advice, the court will examine whether such advice was bona fide reasonably arguable to determine if the conduct constitutes non-cooperation or unsatisfactory behavior. The ruling also reaffirms that a bankrupt cannot use fiduciary duties to other shareholders as an excuse to obstruct trustees' duties in bankruptcy proceedings. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.