EGO FINANCE LTD v. JU LUI AND OTHERS

EGO FINANCE LTD v. JU LUI AND OTHERS

The 1st defendant failed to discharge the burden required to set aside the summary judgment or to show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A; the unserved and late affirmations did not meet the criteria for admission as further evidence on appeal under O59 r10(2) and Ladd v Marshall; the 19 July summons did not establish any recognised legal basis to restrain possession or stay proceedings; accordingly both summonses were dismissed and costs awarded.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 1002
Parties
Plaintiff: EGO FINANCE LIMITED; 1st Defendant: JU LUI (仇雷) (Bankrupt); 2nd Defendant: KWOK SHUI LIN (郭瑞蓮); 3rd Defendant: JU KAU FONG (仇教方)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 August 2021
Case Number
DCMP1714/2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (district Court) Application to Set Aside Judgment; Leave to Appeal; Interlocutory Summonses / Decision on Summonses (hearing and Written Decision)
Outcome
The 4 June 2021 summons and the 19 July 2021 summons by the 1st defendant are dismissed.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Leave to Appeal Under S63 a, Service of Documents, Admission of Further Evidence on Appeal, Ladd V Marshall Criteria, Writ of Possession, Costs, Allegations of Forgery
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Bankruptcy Property Appeal Setting Aside Judgment Leave to Appeal Under S63 a Service of Documents +5 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EGO FINANCE LIMITED

Plaintiff

JU LUI (仇雷) (Bankrupt)

1st Defendant

KWOK SHUI LIN (郭瑞蓮)

2nd Defendant

JU KAU FONG (仇教方)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (district Court) Application to Set Aside Judgment; Leave to Appeal; Interlocutory Summonses / Decision on Summonses (hearing and Written Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant established grounds to set aside the summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s63A District Court Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the unserved 30 June affirmations may be relied on or admitted as further evidence on appeal under O59 r10(2) and Ladd v Marshall

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant failed to discharge the burden required to set aside the summary judgment or to show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A; the unserved and late affirmations did not meet the criteria for admission as further evidence on appeal under O59 r10(2) and Ladd v Marshall; the 19 July summons did not establish any recognised legal basis to restrain possession or stay proceedings; accordingly both summonses were dismissed and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

The 4 June 2021 summons and the 19 July 2021 summons by the 1st defendant are dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismissal of the 4 June 2021 summons for leave to appeal against the Decision dated 4 June 2021
  • Dismissal of the 19 July 2021 summons seeking to restrain possession and alleged harassment