SHINE ARCHIT. DESIGN LTD v. YEE WAI FONG AND OTHERS

SHINE ARCHIT. DESIGN LTD v. YEE WAI FONG AND OTHERS

The court held there was good reason to extend the amended writ (delay caused by correction of defendant address and not deliberate), the limitation period had not expired at the time of application, no material non-disclosure occurred at the ex parte stage, and alleged prejudice to defendants was not material to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 147
Parties
Plaintiff: SHINE ARCHIT. DESIGN LIMITED; 1st Defendant: YEE WAI FONG; 2nd Defendant: YEE CHAI HIM; 3rd Defendant: LWT MANAGEMENT LIMITED; Proposed Representative of Estate of 2nd Defendant: YEE Lareina P W; Proposed Representative of Estate of 2nd Defendant: Yee Yin Wing Nerissa; Proposed Representative of Estate of 2nd Defendant: Yee Yin Yin Pandora
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2024
Case Number
DCCJ152/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Contract/debt / Appeal (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Order of Master Kerby Lau affirmed
Legal Topics
Extension of Writ Validity, Service of Writ, Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Limitation, Ex Parte Disclosure, Agency
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contract Service of Process Property Extension of Writ Validity Service of Writ Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHINE ARCHIT. DESIGN LIMITED

Plaintiff

YEE WAI FONG

1st Defendant

YEE CHAI HIM

2nd Defendant

LWT MANAGEMENT LIMITED

3rd Defendant

YEE Lareina P W

Proposed Representative of Estate of 2nd Defendant

Yee Yin Wing Nerissa

Proposed Representative of Estate of 2nd Defendant

Yee Yin Yin Pandora

Proposed Representative of Estate of 2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Contract/debt / Appeal (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend the validity of the amended writ
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff made material non-disclosure at the ex parte extension application
  3. 3 Whether defendants would suffer irreparable prejudice if extension granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court held there was good reason to extend the amended writ (delay caused by correction of defendant address and not deliberate), the limitation period had not expired at the time of application, no material non-disclosure occurred at the ex parte stage, and alleged prejudice to defendants was not material to the decision as at the application date; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the extension upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Order of Master Kerby Lau affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • D1 and D2 to pay the plaintiff's costs with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed