1. This appeal concerned the constitutionality of s.30A(10)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (“the Ordinance”), by virtue of which the relevant period for automatic discharge from bankruptcy shall, in the case of a person who has left Hong Kong before the commencement of the bankruptcy, not start to run until he returns to Hong Kong and notifies the trustee in bankruptcy of his return. 2. A bankruptcy order was made against the 1st Respondent on 20 December 2006. He was not in Hong Kong on the date the bankruptcy order was made. Although he subsequently visited Hong Kong on a number of occasions from 2006 to 2011, he did not notify the trustees of his return upon those visits. In May 2012, the 1st Respondent was arrested upon entering Hong Kong after he failed to attend an examination by his trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to s.29 of the Ordinance. 3. The 1st Respondent contended that s.30A(10)(a) was unconstitutional in that it contravened the constitutional freedom to travel and to enter and leave Hong Kong provided in Article 31 of the Basic Law (“BL 31”) and Article 8(2) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR 8(2)”) and therefore that the automatic period of discharge from bankruptcy had expired on 21 December 2010 before the time he failed to attend the s.29 examination. 4. The 1st Respondent’s contention failed in the Court of First Instance but succeeded in the Court of Appeal, which declared s.30A(10)(a) unconstitutional. The Appellant appealed, contending that s.30A(10)(a) was constitutional. 5. On the appeal, it was common ground between the parties that the right to travel in BL 31 and BOR 8(2) included the freedom to stay away from Hong Kong and that s.30A(10)(a) infringed the right to travel so understood. The Court therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on that assumption, although the Court noted that this might well be debatable and that the judgment should not be taken to settle the scope of the right to travel. 6. On this basis, the subsection could only be constitutional if it satisfied the proportionality test by which a statutory provision which infringes a constitutional right may nevertheless be held to be constitutional. As it was common ground between the parties that the restriction in question pursued a legitimate aim with which the restriction was rationally connected, the sole question for determination was whether the subsection was proportionate as being no more than necessary to accomplish that legitimate aim, namely to protect primarily the rights of creditors. 7. The Court concluded that s.30A(10)(a) did not satisfy the proportionality test. (1) In considering its constitutionality, s.30A(10)(a) operated as part of a coherent scheme under s.30A(10) regulating the running of time for the purposes of the period of automatic discharge from bankruptcy, with s.30A(10)(a) governing the position of absence from Hong Kong before the commencement of the bankruptcy and s.30A(10)(b) governing absence after its commencement. (2) The Court noted that s.30A(10)(a) applied automatically and without exception regardless of the circumstances that led to the bankrupt’s being absent from Hong Kong and unable to return; it applied regardless of whether the bankrupt was ready and willing to afford all co-operation to the trustee; and it did not vest in the court any discretion to disapply the sanction that arose by reason of the bankrupt’s absence from Hong Kong. (3) In Official Receiver & Trustee in Bankruptcy of Chan Wing Hing v Chan Wing Hing & Secretary for Justice (2006) 9 HKCFAR 545, the Court had earlier held (by a majority) that s.30A(10)(b)(i) of the Ordinance was unconstitutional as it constituted a disproportionate impairment of the right to travel. In the present case, it was common ground between the parties that the judgment of the majority in Chan Wing Hing was a correct statement of the law in respect of s.30A(10)(b)(i) and the Court was not invited to depart from that decision. (4) The Court held that there was no material distinction in the operation of s.30A(10)(a) and s.30A(10)(b)(i). In fact, the obligation imposed on a bankrupt under s.30A(10)(a) was a more onerous obligation than the mere notification requirement of s.30A(10)(b)(i) since it required the bankrupt physically to return to Hong Kong and notify the trustee. 8. Accordingly, the Court held s.30A(10)(a) to be unconstitutional and unanimously dismissed the appeal. 9. The Court noted that the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2015, presently before the legislature, envisages repeal of s.30A(10) and its replacement by a regime pursuant to which the trustee may apply to the court for a non-commencement order where the bankrupt fails to attend the initial interview or to provide the trustee with information requested. Since its proposed commencement date is 1 November 2016, it could have no effect on any bankruptcy order made before that date.