RESORTS WORLD AT SENTOSA PTE LTD v. SZE SIU HUNG

RESORTS WORLD AT SENTOSA PTE LTD v. SZE SIU HUNG

The court adopted the view that s6(1)(a)(iii) mandates actual notice of the foreign proceedings generally in sufficient time to defend; applied to the facts the respondent had actual notice (knew of the writ, claim, action number and engaged solicitors) and therefore the mandatory ground for setting aside registration under s6(1)(a)(iii) was not made out; registration of the Singapore judgment was upheld.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1646
Parties
Applicant/creditor: Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd; Respondent/debtor: Sze Siu Hung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 2018
Case Number
HCMP1167/2017
Procedural Posture
Registration of Foreign Judgment (foreign Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance Cap 319) / De Novo Appeal Hearing on Summons to Set Aside Registration of Singapore Judgment
Outcome
Summons to set aside registration dismissed; registration of the Singapore judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Registration of Foreign Judgment, Setting Aside Registration, Interpretation of S6(1)(a)(iii) FJREO, Substituted Service, Default Judgment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Service of Process Registration of Foreign Judgment Setting Aside Registration Interpretation of S6(1)(a)(iii) FJREO Substituted Service +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd

Applicant/creditor

Sze Siu Hung

Respondent/debtor

Procedural Posture

Registration of Foreign Judgment (foreign Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance Cap 319) / De Novo Appeal Hearing on Summons to Set Aside Registration of Singapore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 6(1)(a)(iii) FJREO requires actual notice of the foreign proceedings in sufficient time to enable a defendant to defend
  2. 2 Whether "proceedings" in s6(1)(a)(iii) means the foreign proceedings generally or the specific procedural step leading to judgment
  3. 3 Whether on the facts the respondent received actual notice in sufficient time to defend

Ratio Decidendi

The court adopted the view that s6(1)(a)(iii) mandates actual notice of the foreign proceedings generally in sufficient time to defend; applied to the facts the respondent had actual notice (knew of the writ, claim, action number and engaged solicitors) and therefore the mandatory ground for setting aside registration under s6(1)(a)(iii) was not made out; registration of the Singapore judgment was upheld.

Court Disposition

Summons to set aside registration dismissed; registration of the Singapore judgment upheld

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Registration of the Singapore Judgment maintained