HONG KONG RISHENG ELECTRONIC LTD v. NG NG YEUNG

HONG KONG RISHENG ELECTRONIC LTD v. NG NG YEUNG

The Immigration Department travel record established that the 1st defendant was absent from Hong Kong during the period when the writ was purportedly served, there was no evidence the record was incomplete or incorrect, and consequently the Master did not err in setting aside the default judgment; the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Citation
HONG KONG RISHENG ELECTRONIC LTD v. NG NG YEUNG
Parties
1st Defendant: Mr Ng Ng-yeung
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 February 2010
Case Number
DCCJ1478/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision (appeal Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Mak's orders upheld in substance
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Travel Records as Evidence, Default Judgment, Costs
Source Language
EN

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ng Ng-yeung

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision (appeal Hearing)

  1. 1 Whether the writ of summons was validly served on the 1st defendant
  2. 2 Whether Immigration Department travel records establish the 1st defendant was absent from Hong Kong when service purportedly occurred
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in setting aside the default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Department travel record established that the 1st defendant was absent from Hong Kong during the period when the writ was purportedly served, there was no evidence the record was incomplete or incorrect, and consequently the Master did not err in setting aside the default judgment; the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Mak's orders upheld in substance

Orders

  • Order item (7) made by Master Mak on 13 November 2009 be set aside
  • There be no order as to costs in relation to the first and second summonses