TSO YUET KUK v. SURE FAMOUS LTD AND ANOTHER

TSO YUET KUK v. SURE FAMOUS LTD AND ANOTHER

Master concluded there were good reasons to extend the writ: the Plaintiff promptly undertook restoration proceedings after acquiring actual knowledge, COVID‑19 and Legal Aid processing delays made earlier service impracticable, the defendants' solicitors' conduct evidenced an agreement or understanding to defer proceeding, and any non‑disclosure in the ex parte affirmation was innocent; accordingly the defendants' application to set aside the extension was dismissed and the extension order was allowed to stand.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 524
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: Sure Famous Limited; 2nd Defendant: Kum Shing (K.F.) Construction Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Case Number
DCPI2776/2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (civil) / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Extension Order
Outcome
1st and 2nd Defendants' summons dated 11 December 2020 dismissed; ex parte order extending writ retained; directions given for continued prosecution of claim.
Legal Topics
Extension of Writ Validity, Restoration of Deregistered Company, Service of Process, Ex Parte Disclosure, Limitation Period, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Personal Injury Limitation Law Extension of Writ Validity Restoration of Deregistered Company Service of Process Ex Parte Disclosure +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Sure Famous Limited

1st Defendant

Kum Shing (K.F.) Construction Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (civil) / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Extension Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend the validity of the writ under Order 6 r 8(2)
  2. 2 Whether the writ should have been served on the 2nd Defendant notwithstanding the 1st Defendant's deregistration
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure in the ex parte application and if so whether the order should be discharged

Ratio Decidendi

Master concluded there were good reasons to extend the writ: the Plaintiff promptly undertook restoration proceedings after acquiring actual knowledge, COVID‑19 and Legal Aid processing delays made earlier service impracticable, the defendants' solicitors' conduct evidenced an agreement or understanding to defer proceeding, and any non‑disclosure in the ex parte affirmation was innocent; accordingly the defendants' application to set aside the extension was dismissed and the extension order was allowed to stand.

Court Disposition

1st and 2nd Defendants' summons dated 11 December 2020 dismissed; ex parte order extending writ retained; directions given for continued prosecution of claim.

Orders

  • 1st and 2nd Defendants\' Summons dated 11 December 2020 dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to file and serve Statement of Claim, Statement of Damages and medical reports within 28 days.