DE BEDIN & LEE LLP FORMERLY KNOWN AS DE BEDIN & LEE (A FIRM) v. BRUNO ATZORI

DE BEDIN & LEE LLP FORMERLY KNOWN AS DE BEDIN & LEE (A FIRM) v. BRUNO ATZORI

The court found the c/o Hong Kong address genuine and service valid, refused to strike out the late acknowledgement or the statement of defence because delay and defects did not cause prejudice or render the defence plainly bad, but granted summary judgment because the plaintiff proved the debt under the engagement letter and the defendant had no arguable defence.

Citation
DE BEDIN & LEE LLP FORMERLY KNOWN AS DE BEDIN & LEE (A FIRM) v. BRUNO ATZORI
Parties
Plaintiff: DE BEDIN & LEE LLP; Defendant: BRUNO ATZORI
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 February 2017
Case Number
DCCJ4720/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt Recovery (solicitors' Fees) / Summary Judgment Application (order 14)
Outcome
Final judgment entered for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings, Statement of Truth
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Debt Recovery Costs Law Service of Process Acknowledgment of Service Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DE BEDIN & LEE LLP

Plaintiff

BRUNO ATZORI

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt Recovery (solicitors' Fees) / Summary Judgment Application (order 14)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summons was duly served
  2. 2 Whether the acknowledgment of service was out of time and should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the statement of defence should be struck out for embarrassment/lack of particulars/lack of statement of truth

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the c/o Hong Kong address genuine and service valid, refused to strike out the late acknowledgement or the statement of defence because delay and defects did not cause prejudice or render the defence plainly bad, but granted summary judgment because the plaintiff proved the debt under the engagement letter and the defendant had no arguable defence.

Court Disposition

Final judgment entered for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Retrospective leave granted for the defendant to file the acknowledgement of service received on 25 October 2016.
  • Final judgment against the defendant for HK$147,599.80 with pre‑ and post‑judgment interest as per paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the draft order.