YEUNG FU LIN AND ANOTHER v. WONG KAM HUNG AND ANOTHER

YEUNG FU LIN AND ANOTHER v. WONG KAM HUNG AND ANOTHER

The appeal was dismissed because the first defendant failed to provide any acceptable explanation for the delay in applying to set aside service; absent a satisfactory explanation the court declined to exercise its discretion under Order 3 Rule 5 to condone the late application, so the defendant's appeal failed.

Citation
YEUNG FU LIN AND ANOTHER v. WONG KAM HUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: YEUNG FU LIN; Plaintiff: CHENG CHEUNG WAI (intended administrator of CHENG CHEUNG WANG, deceased); First Defendant: WONG KAM HUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 1997
Case Number
HCPI990/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Procedural Challenge to Service / Interlocutory Appeal Against Registrar's Refusal to Set Aside Service of Writ; Application Under Order 3 Rule 5
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Setting Aside Service, Extension/abridgement of Time, Order 3 Rule 5, Order 10 Rule 3(a) Deemed Service, Order 12 Rule 8
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Jurisdiction Service of Process Setting Aside Service Extension/abridgement of Time Order 3 Rule 5 Order 10 Rule 3(a) Deemed Service +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YEUNG FU LIN

Plaintiff

CHENG CHEUNG WAI (intended administrator of CHENG CHEUNG WANG, deceased)

Plaintiff

WONG KAM HUNG

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Procedural Challenge to Service / Interlocutory Appeal Against Registrar's Refusal to Set Aside Service of Writ; Application Under Order 3 Rule 5

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's application to set aside service was made in time or can be condoned
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Order 3 Rule 5 to extend/abridge time after expiry
  3. 3 Proper application of Order 10 Rule 3(a) deeming service by post

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the first defendant failed to provide any acceptable explanation for the delay in applying to set aside service; absent a satisfactory explanation the court declined to exercise its discretion under Order 3 Rule 5 to condone the late application, so the defendant's appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs