杭州天道實業有限公司 v. CHAU OI FUNG

杭州天道實業有限公司 v. CHAU OI FUNG

The defendant, having been validly served in Hong Kong, filed an unqualified defence one day after issuing a summons under O.12 r.8 and also applied for security for costs; those steps constituted submission to Hong Kong jurisdiction, the defendant did not demonstrate any exceptional change of circumstances to justify a forum non conveniens stay, and no irregularity was shown to set aside the writ; therefore the defendant's O.12 r.8 summons is dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
杭州天道實業有限公司 v. CHAU OI FUNG
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant; Contracting Party/third Party: Sengwei Plastic (Shenzhen) Co Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2014
Case Number
HCA488/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort Procuring Breach of Contract); Jurisdiction Challenge Under O.12 R.8 / Chamber Summons to Set Aside Writ and Stay Proceedings; Hearing and Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Defendant's summons dated 21 July 2014 under O.12 r.8 dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction as of Right, Submission to Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Procuring Breach of Contract, Security for Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Tort Private International Law Jurisdiction Service of Process Jurisdiction as of Right Submission to Jurisdiction +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Sengwei Plastic (Shenzhen) Co Ltd

Contracting Party/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort Procuring Breach of Contract); Jurisdiction Challenge Under O.12 R.8 / Chamber Summons to Set Aside Writ and Stay Proceedings; Hearing and Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hong Kong court has jurisdiction over the defendant
  2. 2 Whether service and subsequent conduct amounted to submission to jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the writ should be set aside for irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, having been validly served in Hong Kong, filed an unqualified defence one day after issuing a summons under O.12 r.8 and also applied for security for costs; those steps constituted submission to Hong Kong jurisdiction, the defendant did not demonstrate any exceptional change of circumstances to justify a forum non conveniens stay, and no irregularity was shown to set aside the writ; therefore the defendant's O.12 r.8 summons is dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Defendant's summons dated 21 July 2014 under O.12 r.8 dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's summons dated 21 July 2014 dismissed
  • Costs to plaintiff to be paid by defendant; to be taxed if not agreed