WILLIAM JOHN REIDY v. CLINTON ROWE AND ANOTHER

WILLIAM JOHN REIDY v. CLINTON ROWE AND ANOTHER

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to serve the Notice of Appeal within the statutory five-day period and failed to appear or to respond to judicial correspondence, demonstrating a lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal; dismissal is warranted and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
WILLIAM JOHN REIDY v. CLINTON ROWE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: William John Reidy; 1st Defendant / Director and Authorised Representative: Clinton Rowe; 2nd Defendant / Appellant: Siprano Asia / Pacific Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2008
Case Number
DCCJ3893/2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Master's Order in Civil Proceedings (set Aside Default Judgment) / Appeal Hearing (hearing Date; Parties Absent)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Set Aside Default Judgment, Service of Notice of Appeal, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Authority to Represent
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Court Practice Company Law Default Judgment Set Aside Default Judgment Service of Notice of Appeal Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Authority to Represent

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William John Reidy

Plaintiff

Clinton Rowe

1st Defendant / Director and Authorised Representative

Siprano Asia / Pacific Limited

2nd Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Master's Order in Civil Proceedings (set Aside Default Judgment) / Appeal Hearing (hearing Date; Parties Absent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Appeal was properly served in compliance with O.58 r.1(3) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap.336)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's failure to serve the notice and to appear/respond justifies dismissal for lack of seriousness/for want of prosecution
  3. 3 Whether costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to serve the Notice of Appeal within the statutory five-day period and failed to appear or to respond to judicial correspondence, demonstrating a lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal; dismissal is warranted and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs