LI OI HUNG 對 FAMOSO CO LTD 及另三人

LI OI HUNG 對 FAMOSO CO LTD 及另三人

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the defendants' account and concluded the plaintiff did not effect service of the writs on the first to fourth defendants by 7 September 2012 4pm, thereby breaching the conditional order; accordingly the plaintiff's claims against defendants 1–4 were struck out and costs were awarded to the defendants.

Citation
LI OI HUNG 對 FAMOSO CO LTD 及另三人
Parties
Plaintiff: LI OI HUNG; First Defendant: FAMOSO COMPANY LIMITED; Second Defendant: TANG YUK HAR trading as FAMOSO CO.; Third Defendant: TANG YUK SIM trading as FAMOSO CO.; Fourth Defendant: TANG YUK KUEN (formerly trading as FAMOSO CO.)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 July 2013
Case Number
HCPI117/2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Case Management Hearing (application to Strike Out for Failure to Comply With Conditional Order)
Outcome
The plaintiff's claims against the first, second, third and fourth defendants are struck out for failure to comply with the conditional order.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Compliance With Court Order, Striking Out, Costs
Source Language
CH
Civil Litigation Personal Injury Civil Procedure Service of Process Compliance With Court Order Striking Out Costs

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LI OI HUNG

Plaintiff

FAMOSO COMPANY LIMITED

First Defendant

TANG YUK HAR trading as FAMOSO CO.

Second Defendant

TANG YUK SIM trading as FAMOSO CO.

Third Defendant

TANG YUK KUEN (formerly trading as FAMOSO CO.)

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Case Management Hearing (application to Strike Out for Failure to Comply With Conditional Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff served the writ on the first to fourth defendants on or before 7 September 2012 4pm as required by the conditional order
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff breached the conditional order such that her claims should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the evidence proves effective service and the timing of service on the balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the defendants' account and concluded the plaintiff did not effect service of the writs on the first to fourth defendants by 7 September 2012 4pm, thereby breaching the conditional order; accordingly the plaintiff's claims against defendants 1–4 were struck out and costs were awarded to the defendants.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's claims against the first, second, third and fourth defendants are struck out for failure to comply with the conditional order.

Orders

  • Order striking out the plaintiff's claims against the first, second, third and fourth defendants.
  • Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the action; if costs cannot be agreed they are to be taxed by the court.