CHEUNG WAI KWAN v. WAN PAK KEUNG t/a GOLDEN CITY ENGINEERING CO.

CHEUNG WAI KWAN v. WAN PAK KEUNG t/a GOLDEN CITY ENGINEERING CO.

The court set aside the default judgment because the 2nd defendant demonstrated arguable defences with a real prospect of success on key issues (occupiers' duty via competent contractor, contested compliance with safety regulations, and apportionment issues), gave an adequate explanation for the default that did not amount to deliberate contempt, and the interests of justice and potential prejudice to third‑party apportionment required allowing the 2nd defendant to defend the action; consequently leave to file a notice of intention to defend and defence was granted with costs directions.

Citation
CHEUNG WAI KWAN v. WAN PAK KEUNG t/a GOLDEN CITY ENGINEERING CO.
Parties
Plaintiff: Cheung Wai Kwan; 1st Defendant: Wan Pak Keung trading as Golden City Engineering Company; 2nd Defendant: Dragages et Travaux Publics (HK) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 April 2000
Case Number
HCPI521/1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (order 13 R 9)
Outcome
Default judgment entered 6 July 1999 against the 2nd defendant set aside; 2nd defendant granted leave to defend.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Duty of Care, Breach of Safety Regulations, Employment of Independent Contractors
Source Language
EN
Tort Occupiers' Liability Construction Safety Regulation Civil Procedure Setting Aside Default Judgment Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Duty of Care +2 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Wai Kwan

Plaintiff

Wan Pak Keung trading as Golden City Engineering Company

1st Defendant

Dragages et Travaux Publics (HK) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (order 13 R 9)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Order 13 r 9 to set aside a regular default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant has a defence with a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant has given a satisfactory explanation for default and delay

Ratio Decidendi

The court set aside the default judgment because the 2nd defendant demonstrated arguable defences with a real prospect of success on key issues (occupiers' duty via competent contractor, contested compliance with safety regulations, and apportionment issues), gave an adequate explanation for the default that did not amount to deliberate contempt, and the interests of justice and potential prejudice to third‑party apportionment required allowing the 2nd defendant to defend the action; consequently leave to file a notice of intention to defend and defence was granted with costs directions.

Court Disposition

Default judgment entered 6 July 1999 against the 2nd defendant set aside; 2nd defendant granted leave to defend.

Orders

  • Default judgment dated 6 July 1999 against the 2nd defendant is set aside
  • 2nd defendant granted leave to file and serve a notice of intention to defend and a defence within 14 days