HO CHI CHING v. SAIKY CO LTD

HO CHI CHING v. SAIKY CO LTD

The 17 April 2002 document constituted a valid answer despite non‑compliance with Form 5 because it stated the substance and grounds of opposition; once a proper answer has been filed the court could not enter judgment on liability against the respondent merely because he failed to attend the first hearing, therefore the judgment dated 3 May 2002 was irregular and must be set aside.

Citation
HO CHI CHING v. SAIKY CO LTD
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: 2nd Respondent
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 February 2004
Case Number
DCEC149/2002
Procedural Posture
Employee Compensation Application / Application to Set Aside Judgment on Liability (default Judgment)
Outcome
Application allowed; judgment on liability dated 3 May 2002 set aside.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Jurisdiction to Enter Judgment, Form of Pleadings, Setting Aside Irregular Judgment
Source Language
EN
Employee Compensation Civil Procedure Default Judgment Jurisdiction to Enter Judgment Form of Pleadings Setting Aside Irregular Judgment

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

2nd Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employee Compensation Application / Application to Set Aside Judgment on Liability (default Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the document filed by the 2nd Respondent on 17 April 2002 constituted a proper answer under the Rules
  2. 2 Whether the court could validly enter judgment on liability against the 2nd Respondent who had filed an answer but failed to attend the first hearing on 3 May 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The 17 April 2002 document constituted a valid answer despite non‑compliance with Form 5 because it stated the substance and grounds of opposition; once a proper answer has been filed the court could not enter judgment on liability against the respondent merely because he failed to attend the first hearing, therefore the judgment dated 3 May 2002 was irregular and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; judgment on liability dated 3 May 2002 set aside.

Orders

  • Set aside judgment on liability dated 3 May 2002
  • Costs reserved and parties to address costs