JONATHAN PETER WARNETT v. CORPORATION LINK LTD AND OTHERS

JONATHAN PETER WARNETT v. CORPORATION LINK LTD AND OTHERS

The default judgment was set aside because the writ had not been properly served on the 3rd defendant at its registered office and the defective service was not the defendant's fault; accordingly costs of the application to set aside follow the event and the plaintiff must pay those costs; the Mareva injunction was not discharged but its cap was reduced to US$256,670 and the variation application resulted in costs in the cause.

Citation
JONATHAN PETER WARNETT v. CORPORATION LINK LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Jonathan Peter Warnett; 1st Defendant: Corporation Link Limited; 2nd Defendant: Allied View Development Limited; 3rd Defendant: Dexin Mktg Co. Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2009
Case Number
HCA2698/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (mareva Injunction and Setting Aside Default Judgment) / Ruling on Costs Following Judgment
Outcome
Default judgment set aside; plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the set-aside application to the 3rd defendant; Mareva injunction not discharged but cap reduced to US$256,670; costs of the variation/discharge application ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Service of Writ, Costs Follow the Event, Variation of Freezing Order Cap
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions Costs Service of Process Mareva Injunction Setting Aside Default Judgment Service of Writ Costs Follow the Event +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Peter Warnett

Plaintiff

Corporation Link Limited

1st Defendant

Allied View Development Limited

2nd Defendant

Dexin Mktg Co. Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (mareva Injunction and Setting Aside Default Judgment) / Ruling on Costs Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was irregular due to improper service of the writ
  2. 2 Whether costs should follow the event or the court should depart from that general rule
  3. 3 Whether the Mareva injunction should be discharged, varied or have its cap reduced

Ratio Decidendi

The default judgment was set aside because the writ had not been properly served on the 3rd defendant at its registered office and the defective service was not the defendant's fault; accordingly costs of the application to set aside follow the event and the plaintiff must pay those costs; the Mareva injunction was not discharged but its cap was reduced to US$256,670 and the variation application resulted in costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Default judgment set aside; plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the set-aside application to the 3rd defendant; Mareva injunction not discharged but cap reduced to US$256,670; costs of the variation/discharge application ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay the costs of the application to set aside the default judgment to the 3rd defendant
  • Gross sum assessment of HK$60,000 for the application to set aside the default judgment to be paid forthwith to the 3rd defendant