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

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

The writ was not validly served because D1 was not within the jurisdiction when the copy was inserted into the Central Address letter box; electronic communications did not constitute authorised service; absence of expert evidence that company‑recorded director address constituted consent to that mode of service; accordingly the jurisdictional challenge succeeds, default judgment against D1 cannot stand, relief from sanction unnecessary while writ remains unserved, D3/D4 default judgment will be stood over to trial, and VCF application refused.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1821
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
30 September 2024
Case Number
HCA1646/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (company/director Duties, Torts, Passing Off, Declarations, Injunctions) / Chambers Paper Disposal of Interlocutory Summonses (jurisdictional Challenge, Relief From Sanction, Default Judgment Applications, Vcf); Decision Dated 30 September 2024
Outcome
Jurisdiction summons allowed (declaration writ not duly served); D1 default judgment summons dismissed; no order on relief summons; D3 & D4 default judgment summons stood over to trial; VCF summons dismissed; specified costs orders on a nisi basis.
Legal Topics
Service of Writ, Order 10 R.1 RHC, Order 12 R.8 RHC, Forum Non Conveniens, Relief From Sanction/unless Order, Default Judgment, Video Conference Facilities (vcf) Application, Costs Nisi
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Private International Law Company Law Tort (passing Off) Service of Process Arbitration Related Contractual Issues Service of Writ Order 10 R.1 RHC +6 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 (company/director Duties, Torts, Passing Off, Declarations, Injunctions) / Chambers Paper Disposal of Interlocutory Summonses (jurisdictional Challenge, Relief From Sanction, Default Judgment Applications, Vcf); Decision Dated 30 September 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the writ of summons was validly served on D1
  2. 2 Whether the Hong Kong court is forum conveniens or should stay proceedings
  3. 3 Whether D1 had submitted to jurisdiction in Hong Kong

Ratio Decidendi

The writ was not validly served because D1 was not within the jurisdiction when the copy was inserted into the Central Address letter box; electronic communications did not constitute authorised service; absence of expert evidence that company‑recorded director address constituted consent to that mode of service; accordingly the jurisdictional challenge succeeds, default judgment against D1 cannot stand, relief from sanction unnecessary while writ remains unserved, D3/D4 default judgment will be stood over to trial, and VCF application refused.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction summons allowed (declaration writ not duly served); D1 default judgment summons dismissed; no order on relief summons; D3 & D4 default judgment summons stood over to trial; VCF summons dismissed; specified costs orders on a nisi basis.

Orders

  • Jurisdiction Summons allowed and declaration made in terms of paragraph 1 of that summons (writ not duly served on D1 and court should not exercise jurisdiction over D1 on that basis)
  • Plaintiffs to pay D1 costs of and occasioned by the Jurisdiction Summons forthwith, to be taxed if not agreed, save that costs arising from the late filing of the notarised 6th Affirmation and reminders to be paid by D1 to Plaintiffs forthwith, to be taxed if not agreed