RUSSELL PETER BROWN AND OTHERS v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

RUSSELL PETER BROWN AND OTHERS v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

Default interlocutory judgment was not set aside: the claim for a permanent injunction had been abandoned so plaintiffs properly sought interlocutory judgment for damages; service of the concurrent writ was regular; defects in the indorsement are substantive/merits issues and the defendant had taken numerous fresh steps after becoming aware of alleged irregularity so lost the right to set aside under O 2 r 2(1); accordingly the setting aside and strike out applications were dismissed. Specific discovery was ordered in part: the defendant must produce copies of emails and letters disclosed in his affidavit that predate the writ and were not described as failed/filtered/excluded. An unless...

Citation
RUSSELL PETER BROWN AND OTHERS v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Russell Peter Brown; 2nd Plaintiff: Zhouhan Brown (aka Zhou Han); 3rd Plaintiff: Effisicient Limited; Defendant: Edward Eugene Lehman
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2012
Case Number
HCA959/2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory/chambers Decision on Multiple Summonses Including Setting Aside Default Judgment and Discovery
Outcome
Defendant's summons to set aside default interlocutory judgment dismissed; alternative strike out/stay dismissed; plaintiffs' specific discovery summons granted in part; plaintiffs' unless order for experts granted; costs nisi ordered in favour of plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service of Process, Indorsement of Claim (particulars), Interlocutory Injunction, Specific Discovery of Documents, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Stay/strike Out, Costs
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Evidence Default Judgment Service of Process Indorsement of Claim (particulars) Interlocutory Injunction +4 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell Peter Brown

1st Plaintiff

Zhouhan Brown (aka Zhou Han)

2nd Plaintiff

Effisicient Limited

3rd Plaintiff

Edward Eugene Lehman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory/chambers Decision on Multiple Summonses Including Setting Aside Default Judgment and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory/default interlocutory judgment should be set aside for irregularity
  2. 2 Whether claim for permanent injunction was abandoned when plaintiffs applied for interlocutory judgment for damages
  3. 3 Whether indorsement of claim lacked sufficient particulars such that judgment was irregular

Ratio Decidendi

Default interlocutory judgment was not set aside: the claim for a permanent injunction had been abandoned so plaintiffs properly sought interlocutory judgment for damages; service of the concurrent writ was regular; defects in the indorsement are substantive/merits issues and the defendant had taken numerous fresh steps after becoming aware of alleged irregularity so lost the right to set aside under O 2 r 2(1); accordingly the setting aside and strike out applications were dismissed. Specific discovery was ordered in part: the defendant must produce copies of emails and letters disclosed in his affidavit that predate the writ and were not described as failed/filtered/excluded. An unless...

Court Disposition

Defendant's summons to set aside default interlocutory judgment dismissed; alternative strike out/stay dismissed; plaintiffs' specific discovery summons granted in part; plaintiffs' unless order for experts granted; costs nisi ordered in favour of plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Application to set aside interlocutory default judgment dismissed
  • Strike out of indorsement of claim and dismissal/stay of action dismissed