AN ZHOU AND OTHERS v. ZHOU ZHENG KUAN AND OTHERS

AN ZHOU AND OTHERS v. ZHOU ZHENG KUAN AND OTHERS

The 1st defendant failed to make a credible, prompt application for relief within the 14‑day period and provided an inherently unconvincing explanation; there was a history of deliberate or contumelious defaults and the requested particulars were central to the dispute causing prejudice — therefore the automatic sanction took effect and judgment is entered against the 1st defendant pursuant to the two unless orders of 4 May 2012 with costs.

Citation
AN ZHOU AND OTHERS v. ZHOU ZHENG KUAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Claimants: Plaintiffs; Defendant: 1st Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2012
Case Number
HCA241/2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Application for Judgment Pursuant to Unless Orders After Alleged Breach of Discovery/particulars Orders
Outcome
Judgment entered against the 1st defendant pursuant to the 1st and 2nd unless orders dated 4 May 2012
Legal Topics
Unless Order, Relief From Sanction, Further and Better Particulars, Strike Out, Amendment of Defence
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Practice and Procedure Unless Order Relief From Sanction Further and Better Particulars Strike Out +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Claimants

1st Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Malicious Falsehood / Application for Judgment Pursuant to Unless Orders After Alleged Breach of Discovery/particulars Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from the sanction of an unless order should be granted under Order 2 rule 4 and rule 5
  2. 2 Whether the default was caused by the litigant or by his legal representative and whether explanation is credible
  3. 3 Whether the particulars requested (breakdown of RMB5 million and purchase price) were relevant to the defence and central to the dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant failed to make a credible, prompt application for relief within the 14‑day period and provided an inherently unconvincing explanation; there was a history of deliberate or contumelious defaults and the requested particulars were central to the dispute causing prejudice — therefore the automatic sanction took effect and judgment is entered against the 1st defendant pursuant to the two unless orders of 4 May 2012 with costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered against the 1st defendant pursuant to the 1st and 2nd unless orders dated 4 May 2012

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the 1st defendant pursuant to the 1st and 2nd unless orders of 4 May 2012
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs on a party and party basis with certificate for one senior counsel, payable forthwith