LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. MARK DAVID LAMB AND OTHERS

LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. MARK DAVID LAMB AND OTHERS

The court refused leave to appeal because plaintiffs could not show a reasonable prospect of success; the sworn 6th Affirmation was properly admitted as correction of an irregularity under O.2 r.1(2); the court accepted that D1 had not been duly served and was entitled to a declaration under O.12 r.8, which defeated the default judgment; plaintiffs failed to establish grounds to vary the costs orders nisi and their variation summons was dismissed; costs of the summonses were ordered to defendants as the overall successful parties.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 730
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD; 2nd Plaintiff: LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES SOFTWARE LIMITED; 1st Defendant: MARK DAVID LAMB; 2nd Defendant: ROGER KEITH VER; 3rd Defendant: OPEN TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING LIMITED; 4th Defendant: OPEN TECHNOLOGY MARKETS LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 February 2025
Case Number
HCA1646/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (interlocutory Applications Concerning Jurisdiction, Service, Default Judgment and Costs) / Determination of Two Summonses on Paper: Variation of Costs Orders Nisi and Leave to Appeal From Previous Decision
Outcome
Both the Variation Summons and the Leave Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Substituted Service, Default Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Costs, Leave to Appeal, Forum Non Conveniens
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Private International Law Civil Litigation Service of Process Jurisdiction Substituted Service Default Judgment Relief From Sanctions +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD

1st Plaintiff

LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES SOFTWARE LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

MARK DAVID LAMB

1st Defendant

ROGER KEITH VER

2nd Defendant

OPEN TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING LIMITED

3rd Defendant

OPEN TECHNOLOGY MARKETS LTD

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (interlocutory Applications Concerning Jurisdiction, Service, Default Judgment and Costs) / Determination of Two Summonses on Paper: Variation of Costs Orders Nisi and Leave to Appeal From Previous Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted (reasonable prospect of success)
  2. 2 Admissibility of belated sworn affirmation (6th Affirmation of D1)
  3. 3 Validity of service of the Writ and entitlement to declaration of ineffective service under O.12 r.8

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave to appeal because plaintiffs could not show a reasonable prospect of success; the sworn 6th Affirmation was properly admitted as correction of an irregularity under O.2 r.1(2); the court accepted that D1 had not been duly served and was entitled to a declaration under O.12 r.8, which defeated the default judgment; plaintiffs failed to establish grounds to vary the costs orders nisi and their variation summons was dismissed; costs of the summonses were ordered to defendants as the overall successful parties.

Court Disposition

Both the Variation Summons and the Leave Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismiss the Variation Summons dated 2 October 2024.
  • Dismiss the Leave Summons dated 14 October 2024.