RICH TREND LTD v. 張文房 AND OTHERS

RICH TREND LTD v. 張文房 AND OTHERS

Leave granted to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to file and serve their Defence out of time and default judgment refused because earlier affirmation disclosed substantive issues (status of Plaintiff's possessory title and authenticity/impact of authorization and restoration of registered owner) that require full trial; prejudice to Plaintiff was not material and could be compensated by costs; costs awarded to Plaintiff on indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$120,000.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 271
Parties
Plaintiff: Rich Trend Limited; 1st Defendant: 張文房; 2nd Defendant: 潘麒元; 3rd Defendant: Unknown Person as identified by Photo No. 3 attached hereto; 4th Defendant: 韓應睦; 5th Defendant: Unknown Person as identified by Photo No. 5 attached hereto; 6th Defendant: Unknown Person as identified by Photo No. 6 attached hereto; 7th Defendant: Unknown Person as identified by Photo No. 7 attached hereto; 8th Defendant: THE OCCUPIER(S) UNLAWFULLY ENTERING OR REMAINING AT THE PROPERTY (AS DEFINED BELOW) WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 February 2023
Case Number
HCA906/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Default Judgment and Application for Extension of Time to File Defence / Chambers Hearing and Decision on Summonses
Outcome
Summons dated 19 September 2022 dismissed; leave granted to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to file and serve their Defence out of time within 7 days; costs awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$120,000.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Extension of Time to File Defence, Possessory Title, Agency/authorization, Restoration of Company, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Law Possession Company Law Costs Default Judgment Extension of Time to File Defence Possessory Title +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rich Trend Limited

Plaintiff

張文房

1st Defendant

潘麒元

2nd Defendant

Unknown Person as identified by Photo No. 3 attached hereto

3rd Defendant

韓應睦

4th Defendant

Unknown Person as identified by Photo No. 5 attached hereto

5th Defendant

Unknown Person as identified by Photo No. 6 attached hereto

6th Defendant

Unknown Person as identified by Photo No. 7 attached hereto

7th Defendant

THE OCCUPIER(S) UNLAWFULLY ENTERING OR REMAINING AT THE PROPERTY (AS DEFINED BELOW) WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Default Judgment and Application for Extension of Time to File Defence / Chambers Hearing and Decision on Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether default judgment should be entered against the 1st and 2nd Defendants
  2. 2 Whether to grant leave to 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to file and serve a Defence out of time
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff has possessory title to the subject property

Ratio Decidendi

Leave granted to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to file and serve their Defence out of time and default judgment refused because earlier affirmation disclosed substantive issues (status of Plaintiff's possessory title and authenticity/impact of authorization and restoration of registered owner) that require full trial; prejudice to Plaintiff was not material and could be compensated by costs; costs awarded to Plaintiff on indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$120,000.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 19 September 2022 dismissed; leave granted to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to file and serve their Defence out of time within 7 days; costs awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$120,000.

Orders

  • Summons dated 19 September 2022 dismissed
  • Leave granted to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to file and serve their Defence within 7 days