YIP YUET MING及另一人 對 LIU KING WA

YIP YUET MING及另一人 對 LIU KING WA

The tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the time‑limit in r.32A(2) and by improperly exercising its discretion: on the Shocked factors the defendant was aware of the hearing, offered no evidential basis for her asserted defence or for the delay, and delayed for over a year; accordingly the conditional...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 3144
Parties
Claimant: YIP YUET MING; Claimant: CHAU WAI YING CONNIE; Defendant: LIU KING WA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 December 2019
Case Number
HCSA18/2019
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Determination on Appeal (permission Granted)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; 16 May 2019 tribunal order set aside; 5 January 2018 default judgment restored; costs awarded to claimants.
Legal Topics
Set Aside Default Judgment, Extension of Time, Service of Process, Costs
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeals Enforcement Property Damage Set Aside Default Judgment Extension of Time Service of Process Costs

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YIP YUET MING

Claimant

CHAU WAI YING CONNIE

Claimant

LIU KING WA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to Court of First Instance / Determination on Appeal (permission Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Small Claims Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion under r.32A to set aside a default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside was time‑barred under r.32A(2) and whether an extension of time should have been granted
  3. 3 Whether the Shocked and another v Goldschmidt factors support setting aside the default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the time‑limit in r.32A(2) and by improperly exercising its discretion: on the Shocked factors the defendant was aware of the hearing, offered no evidential basis for her asserted defence or for the delay, and delayed for over a year; accordingly the conditional set‑aside was unjustified, the 2019 order was set aside and the 2018 default judgment restored with costs to the claimants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; 16 May 2019 tribunal order set aside; 5 January 2018 default judgment restored; costs awarded to claimants.

Orders

  • Order of the tribunal dated 16 May 2019 is set aside.
  • Default judgment dated 5 January 2018 is restored.