GO FUN GROUP HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN CHENGYE AND ANOTHER

GO FUN GROUP HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN CHENGYE AND ANOTHER

Application refused because service of the writ was not proved on the evidence and the proposed injunction was impermissibly vague; the wrong Order cited on the summons was not dispositive but the substantive defects warranted refusal.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2308
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Go Fun Group Holdings Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Go Fun Card Limited; 1st Defendant: Sun Chengye; 2nd Defendant: Tuen Lui
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Case Number
HCA753/2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation With Injunction and Claim for Damages / Application for Default Judgment (summons Filed)
Outcome
Application refused; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service of Process, Injunctive Relief, Procedural Noncompliance
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Equity Injunctions Default Judgment Service of Process Injunctive Relief Procedural Noncompliance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Go Fun Group Holdings Limited

1st Plaintiff

Go Fun Card Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Sun Chengye

1st Defendant

Tuen Lui

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation With Injunction and Claim for Damages / Application for Default Judgment (summons Filed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether service of the writ was properly effected
  2. 2 whether the summons taken out under Order 13 r 2 was fatal or could be cured by proceeding under Order 19 r 7
  3. 3 whether the evidence identified the defendants and their addresses sufficiently

Ratio Decidendi

Application refused because service of the writ was not proved on the evidence and the proposed injunction was impermissibly vague; the wrong Order cited on the summons was not dispositive but the substantive defects warranted refusal.

Court Disposition

Application refused; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Application for judgment in default and for injunction refused
  • No order as to costs