XIE DAPHNE WEN v. LEE CHUN HING AND ANOTHER t/a KAI FU ELECTRICAL PARTS TRADING AND ENGINEERING

XIE DAPHNE WEN v. LEE CHUN HING AND ANOTHER t/a KAI FU ELECTRICAL PARTS TRADING AND ENGINEERING

Service of the writ on the three addresses was irregular because none constituted the usual and last known address of the 2nd-named defendant and the writ had not come to his notice; the 2nd-named defendant demonstrated potential real prospects of success on the merits; therefore the default judgment was set aside and costs nisi ordered to the 2nd-named defendant to be made absolute in 14 days.

Citation
XIE DAPHNE WEN v. LEE CHUN HING AND ANOTHER t/a KAI FU ELECTRICAL PARTS TRADING AND ENGINEERING
Parties
Plaintiff: Xie Daphne Wen; Defendant: Lee Chun Hing; Defendant: Leung Shiu Kee trading as Kai Fu Electrical Parts Trading and Engineering
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 July 2006
Case Number
DCCJ6337/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (dishonoured Cheques) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment; Judgment Handed Down
Outcome
Default judgment set aside in favour of the 2nd-named defendant; costs nisi to the 2nd-named defendant; order to be made absolute in 14 days.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Cessation of Partnership, Dishonoured Cheques, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Debt Recovery Civil Enforcement Service of Process Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Cessation of Partnership +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xie Daphne Wen

Plaintiff

Lee Chun Hing

Defendant

Leung Shiu Kee trading as Kai Fu Electrical Parts Trading and Engineering

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (dishonoured Cheques) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment; Judgment Handed Down

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the writ was proper and whether the writ came to the defendant's notice
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd-named defendant had a real prospect of success on the merits to justify setting aside the default judgment
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd-named defendant remained liable as partner after cessation and whether he held himself out as partner

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the writ on the three addresses was irregular because none constituted the usual and last known address of the 2nd-named defendant and the writ had not come to his notice; the 2nd-named defendant demonstrated potential real prospects of success on the merits; therefore the default judgment was set aside and costs nisi ordered to the 2nd-named defendant to be made absolute in 14 days.

Court Disposition

Default judgment set aside in favour of the 2nd-named defendant; costs nisi to the 2nd-named defendant; order to be made absolute in 14 days.

Orders

  • Default judgment entered 28 January 2005 set aside.
  • Costs nisi to the 2nd-named defendant.