GLORY WEALTH INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GRAND RICH INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

GLORY WEALTH INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GRAND RICH INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

The court held that service on the 2nd defendant was ineffective because the 1st defendant had moved business address before service; therefore the default judgment against the 2nd defendant was irregular and set aside as of right. Independently, both defendants demonstrated meritorious defences with a real prospect of success because the plaintiff produced no evidence of the Assignment of Debt or any guarantee and there was prima facie evidence that the debt related to Host Glory and was to be settled by the developer; accordingly the default judgment against both defendants was set aside on the merits.

Citation
GLORY WEALTH INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GRAND RICH INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant (principal): 1st Defendant; Defendant (guarantor): 2nd Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 March 2015
Case Number
DCCJ2760/2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (order 13 R9, District Court) / Decision After Hearing Reasons for Judgment Provided
Outcome
Default judgment set aside against both 1st and 2nd defendants; judgment against 2nd defendant set aside as irregular (ex debito justitiae); defendants granted leave to defend.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Service of Writ, Meritorious Defence, Assignment of Debt, Guarantee
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Debt Recovery Company Law Setting Aside Default Judgment Service of Writ Meritorious Defence Assignment of Debt +1 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

Defendant (principal)

2nd Defendant

Defendant (guarantor)

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (order 13 R9, District Court) / Decision After Hearing Reasons for Judgment Provided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the writ on the 2nd defendant was effective or rendered the default judgment irregular
  2. 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants have a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success to justify setting aside a regular default judgment
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence of the Assignment of Debt and the guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that service on the 2nd defendant was ineffective because the 1st defendant had moved business address before service; therefore the default judgment against the 2nd defendant was irregular and set aside as of right. Independently, both defendants demonstrated meritorious defences with a real prospect of success because the plaintiff produced no evidence of the Assignment of Debt or any guarantee and there was prima facie evidence that the debt related to Host Glory and was to be settled by the developer; accordingly the default judgment against both defendants was set aside on the merits.

Court Disposition

Default judgment set aside against both 1st and 2nd defendants; judgment against 2nd defendant set aside as irregular (ex debito justitiae); defendants granted leave to defend.

Orders

  • Default judgment set aside insofar as against the 2nd defendant (irregular service) and set aside against both 1st and 2nd defendants on the merits
  • Plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the summons dated 1 December 2014 and the plaintiff's own summons dated 15 March 2015 with a certificate for counsel