EARTH GROUP LTD v. GLOBALMAX GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

EARTH GROUP LTD v. GLOBALMAX GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the default judgments were regular given the defendants' conduct in evading or ignoring service and there was a prima facie case to pierce the corporate veil such that it was just to impose a joint and several payment of HK$1,139,462 into court as a condition to set aside the judgments and to discharge the charging order; costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 945
Parties
Plaintiff: Earth Group Limited; 1st Defendant: GlobalMax Group Limited; 2nd Defendant: Lee Yan Lam
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Case Number
DCCJ2155/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Breach of Contract and Enforcement (charging Order) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against District Court Decision and Stay of Execution; Decision on Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; corrigendum issued to correct payment order to 'jointly and severally'; stay of execution of specified orders allowed until date of this decision so time limits run from date of decision; costs to plaintiff with certificate for counsel; summary assessment timetable ordered.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Service of Process, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Company Law Enforcement (charging Orders) Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Piercing the Corporate Veil Service of Process +3 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Earth Group Limited

Plaintiff

GlobalMax Group Limited

1st Defendant

Lee Yan Lam

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Breach of Contract and Enforcement (charging Order) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against District Court Decision and Stay of Execution; Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have a real prospect of success to obtain leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the default judgments and charging order were regular and service was evaded
  3. 3 Whether there is a prima facie case to pierce the corporate veil and thus justify conditions to set aside judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the default judgments were regular given the defendants' conduct in evading or ignoring service and there was a prima facie case to pierce the corporate veil such that it was just to impose a joint and several payment of HK$1,139,462 into court as a condition to set aside the judgments and to discharge the charging order; costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; corrigendum issued to correct payment order to 'jointly and severally'; stay of execution of specified orders allowed until date of this decision so time limits run from date of decision; costs to plaintiff with certificate for counsel; summary assessment timetable ordered.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal by the 1st and 2nd defendants is dismissed
  • Corrigendum to paragraph 44 of the Decision dated 27 April 2022 to read: 'The final judgment entered against the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant on 31 July 2019 be set aside on the condition that the 1st and 2nd defendants jointly and severally pay a sum of HK$1,139,462 into court within 28 days of this order.'