KING PARK DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GREATLEY LTD AND ANOTHER

KING PARK DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GREATLEY LTD AND ANOTHER

The court refused to enter default judgment against the 2nd Defendant because the plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 2nd Defendants involve the same subject matter and asserted rights, so entering judgment would unfairly prejudice the 1st Defendant who intends to defend; consequently the summons was stood over until trial and costs were awarded in the cause.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 203
Parties
Plaintiff: KING PARK DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: GREATLEY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: OCCUPIER OF SHOP NOS. G2 and G3 ON GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL PODIUM, SINCERE HOUSE, NO. 83 ARGYLE STREET, KOWLOON
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 February 2024
Case Number
DCCJ4687/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (trespass and Injunctive Relief) / Interlocutory Application for Default Judgment Under O.19 R.7 RDC
Outcome
Summons stood over until trial; default judgment refused; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Trespass, Injunction, Mesne Profits, Joinder and Severability of Claims
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Tort Property Law Default Judgment Trespass Injunction Mesne Profits Joinder and Severability of Claims

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KING PARK DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff

GREATLEY LIMITED

1st Defendant

OCCUPIER OF SHOP NOS. G2 and G3 ON GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL PODIUM, SINCERE HOUSE, NO. 83 ARGYLE STREET, KOWLOON

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (trespass and Injunctive Relief) / Interlocutory Application for Default Judgment Under O.19 R.7 RDC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to enter default judgment against the 2nd Defendant under O.19 r.7 RDC
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the defaulting 2nd Defendant is severable from the claim against the 1st Defendant
  3. 3 Whether it is fair and just to enter default judgment given the effect on the non-defaulting 1st Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to enter default judgment against the 2nd Defendant because the plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 2nd Defendants involve the same subject matter and asserted rights, so entering judgment would unfairly prejudice the 1st Defendant who intends to defend; consequently the summons was stood over until trial and costs were awarded in the cause.

Court Disposition

Summons stood over until trial; default judgment refused; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The Summons to be stood over until trial
  • Costs in the cause