TOP ONE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) PROPERTY GROUP CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOP ONE PROPERTY GROUP LTD AND OTHERS
The court refused relief from the sanction of the Unless Order because the 3rd defendant deliberately evaded service and orders and his default was intentional and contumelious (or at minimum demonstrated deliberate avoidance); accordingly the Amended Defence of the 1st and 3rd defendants remains struck out, default...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TOP ONE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) PROPERTY GROUP CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOP ONE PROPERTY GROUP LTD AND OTHERS
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: TOP ONE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) PROPERTY GROUP COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; 1st Defendant: TOP ONE PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: PO FOR YAU; 3rd Defendant: SUN JIANGRONG
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 9 December 2010
- Case Number
- HCA1244/2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Commercial Litigation (company/share Charge/receivership) / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications (reinstatement, Default Judgment, Damages Assessment, Receivership)
- Outcome
- Reinstatement Summons dismissed; Default judgment entered against 1st and 3rd defendants in terms of paragraph 15 of the Amended Statement of Claim; Assessment Summons dismissed and damages to be assessed by a master; declaratory relief refused by default.
- Legal Topics
- Unless Order, Default Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Service of Process, Substituted Service, Damages Assessment, Declaratory Relief, Appointment of Receivers, Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
TOP ONE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) PROPERTY GROUP COMPANY LIMITED
1st Plaintiff
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
2nd Plaintiff
TOP ONE PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED
1st Defendant
PO FOR YAU
2nd Defendant
SUN JIANGRONG
3rd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Litigation (company/share Charge/receivership) / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications (reinstatement, Default Judgment, Damages Assessment, Receivership)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether relief from the sanction of striking out (Unless Order) should be granted to the 1st and 3rd defendants
- 2 Whether default judgment should be entered against the 1st and 3rd defendants
- 3 Whether damages claimed should be assessed by the court or referred to a master
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused relief from the sanction of the Unless Order because the 3rd defendant deliberately evaded service and orders and his default was intentional and contumelious (or at minimum demonstrated deliberate avoidance); accordingly the Amended Defence of the 1st and 3rd defendants remains struck out, default judgment was entered in respect of the relief claimed in paragraph 15 of the Amended Statement of Claim (including appointment of receivers), damages claims were directed to assessment by a master and declaratory relief was refused by default as inappropriate without evidence.
Court Disposition
Reinstatement Summons dismissed; Default judgment entered against 1st and 3rd defendants in terms of paragraph 15 of the Amended Statement of Claim; Assessment Summons dismissed and damages to be assessed by a master; declaratory relief refused by default.
Orders
- Reinstatement Summons of the 1st and 3rd defendants dismissed
- Default judgment entered in terms of paragraph 15 of the Prayer in the Amended Statement of Claim against the 1st and 3rd defendants
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment