RAND DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. 邱安

RAND DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. 邱安

The court accepted the plaintiffs' sworn evidence that ordinary post service of the Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim occurred despite documentary proof surfacing late, exercised its O.19 r.7 discretion to enter interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed and final judgment for possession and related relief, and declined to grant a mandatory injunction given plaintiffs can obtain possession and themselves comply with the Town Planning Department order; costs were ordered for plaintiffs except no costs for the second affidavit of the solicitor-trainee.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 1406
Parties
1st Plaintiff: RAND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: NICEFIT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LIMITED; Defendant: 邱安
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2022
Case Number
DCCJ4605/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Recovery of Land / Application for Default Judgment (o.19 R.7)
Outcome
Interlocutory judgment in terms of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Summons with damages to be assessed; Final judgment in terms of paragraphs (d) and (e) of the Summons; no order as to costs in respect of the LK 2nd Affidavit; costs of the action including this application to plaintiffs, to be taxed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service of Process, Possession, Mandatory Injunction, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Land Law Equity and Remedies Default Judgment Service of Process Possession Mandatory Injunction Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

NICEFIT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

邱安

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Recovery of Land / Application for Default Judgment (o.19 R.7)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim were properly served by ordinary post and posting up
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under O.19 r.7 to enter judgment on the pleadings only
  3. 3 Whether a mandatory injunction to compel compliance with the Town Planning Department order is an appropriate remedy in default judgment proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the plaintiffs' sworn evidence that ordinary post service of the Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim occurred despite documentary proof surfacing late, exercised its O.19 r.7 discretion to enter interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed and final judgment for possession and related relief, and declined to grant a mandatory injunction given plaintiffs can obtain possession and themselves comply with the Town Planning Department order; costs were ordered for plaintiffs except no costs for the second affidavit of the solicitor-trainee.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory judgment in terms of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Summons with damages to be assessed; Final judgment in terms of paragraphs (d) and (e) of the Summons; no order as to costs in respect of the LK 2nd Affidavit; costs of the action including this application to plaintiffs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

  • Interlocutory judgment in terms of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Summons with damages to be assessed
  • Final judgment in terms of paragraphs (d) and (e) of the Summons