WU KA v. WU KUO CHENG AND ANOTHER

WU KA v. WU KUO CHENG AND ANOTHER

The defendants had each filed and served a Defence within the relevant time so there was no implied admission and the plaintiff's application for default judgment was misconceived; the plaintiff promptly conceded the mistake and the conduct did not meet the high threshold (scandalous, vexatious or oppressive) required for indemnity costs, so indemnity costs were refused and ordinary costs awarded (to be taxed if not agreed).

Citation
WU KA v. WU KUO CHENG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 July 2003
Case Number
HCA1851/2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory — Application for Default Judgment and Costs; Interlocutory Summons for Striking Out Pending
Outcome
Application for default judgment dismissed; indemnity costs refused; costs to defendants to be taxed if not agreed; directions issued for further interlocutory procedure on strike out summons.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Indemnity Costs, Striking Out, Summary Judgment, Injunction
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Defamation Costs Default Judgment Indemnity Costs Striking Out Summary Judgment Injunction

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory — Application for Default Judgment and Costs; Interlocutory Summons for Striking Out Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants' earlier filed document amounted to a Defence and therefore precluded default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's application for default judgment was misconceived
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded for scandalous, vexatious or oppressive conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants had each filed and served a Defence within the relevant time so there was no implied admission and the plaintiff's application for default judgment was misconceived; the plaintiff promptly conceded the mistake and the conduct did not meet the high threshold (scandalous, vexatious or oppressive) required for indemnity costs, so indemnity costs were refused and ordinary costs awarded (to be taxed if not agreed).

Court Disposition

Application for default judgment dismissed; indemnity costs refused; costs to defendants to be taxed if not agreed; directions issued for further interlocutory procedure on strike out summons.

Orders

  • Summons filed 9 July 2003 for default judgment dismissed with costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
  • Indemnity costs refused; costs to be ordinary costs (to be taxed if not agreed).