UNITED KESVICK LTD v. TSANG WING FAI AND OTHERS

UNITED KESVICK LTD v. TSANG WING FAI AND OTHERS

Adjournment was refused because defendants had ample time to plead since service of the statement of claim, no arguable legal defence in law had been shown, and permitting delay would prejudice the prompt administration of the estate; the summons to enter default judgment (including determination of proprietary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 159
Parties
Plaintiff: United Keswick Limited; 1st Defendant: Tsang Wing Fai; 2nd Defendant: Yue Kam Ying; 3rd Defendant: Viceroy Investments Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 January 2020
Case Number
HCA804/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Probate/estate Administration / Chambers Application for Adjournment and Summons to Enter Default Judgment (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; summons to enter default judgment to proceed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Proprietary Claims, Asset Preservation Injunction, Adjournment Application, Tracing
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Probate and Estate Injunctions Equity and Trusts Company/director Duties Default Judgment Proprietary Claims Asset Preservation Injunction +2 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Keswick Limited

Plaintiff

Tsang Wing Fai

1st Defendant

Yue Kam Ying

2nd Defendant

Viceroy Investments Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Probate/estate Administration / Chambers Application for Adjournment and Summons to Enter Default Judgment (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an adjournment of the hearing for summons to enter default judgment
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff may enter default judgment including proprietary remedies or proceed to court for proprietary relief
  3. 3 Whether defendants have shown a viable legal defence in law that justifies delay

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment was refused because defendants had ample time to plead since service of the statement of claim, no arguable legal defence in law had been shown, and permitting delay would prejudice the prompt administration of the estate; the summons to enter default judgment (including determination of proprietary claims) should therefore proceed.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; summons to enter default judgment to proceed

Orders

  • Application for an adjournment refused
  • Summons to enter default judgment (including proprietary claims) to proceed today