Electronic Spider Technology Ltd. and Another v. Au Cheong Tat and Others

Electronic Spider Technology Ltd. and Another v. Au Cheong Tat and Others

Because the 3rd defendant was outside the jurisdiction when service was purportedly effected and service was by ordinary post rather than the registered post required by Order 10 Rule 1(2)(a), service was defective; the default judgment was therefore irregular and must be set aside as of right without imposition of terms in this case.

Citation
Electronic Spider Technology Ltd. and Another v. Au Cheong Tat and Others
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Electronic Spider Technology Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Ist Easy Limited; 1st Defendant: Au Cheong-tat; 2nd Defendant: Fong Kwan-yin; 3rd Defendant: Chiu Kit-yee
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 July 2001
Case Number
DCCJ17323/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (chambers Hearing, Judgment Delivered 20 July 2001)
Outcome
Default judgment dated 8 March 2001 set aside unconditionally.
Legal Topics
Service by Post, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Registered Post Requirement, Costs and Counsel's Certificate
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Service of Process Jurisdiction Default Judgment Service by Post Service Out of Jurisdiction Setting Aside Default Judgment Registered Post Requirement +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electronic Spider Technology Limited

1st Plaintiff

Ist Easy Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Au Cheong-tat

1st Defendant

Fong Kwan-yin

2nd Defendant

Chiu Kit-yee

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (chambers Hearing, Judgment Delivered 20 July 2001)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service by post to last known address was valid when defendant was out of the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether Order 10 Rule 1(2)(a) applies only if defendant is within jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether service by ordinary post (not registered) complies with Rule 1(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the 3rd defendant was outside the jurisdiction when service was purportedly effected and service was by ordinary post rather than the registered post required by Order 10 Rule 1(2)(a), service was defective; the default judgment was therefore irregular and must be set aside as of right without imposition of terms in this case.

Court Disposition

Default judgment dated 8 March 2001 set aside unconditionally.

Orders

  • Default judgment dated 8 March 2001 set aside unconditionally
  • Costs of and occasioned by the application, and costs thrown away, to be paid by the plaintiffs to the 3rd defendant