ZARIR KHALID v. GURUNG DURGA BAHADUR AND ANOTHER

ZARIR KHALID v. GURUNG DURGA BAHADUR AND ANOTHER

The 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any defence with a real prospect of success and provided an unsatisfactory, implausible explanation for the defaults; coupled with prolonged delay, deliberate inaction until enforcement/winding-up threatened, and resultant prejudice to the plaintiff and the public policy of finality, the court exercised its discretion to refuse to set aside the interlocutory and final default judgments and dismissed the 2nd defendant's applications with costs.

Citation
ZARIR KHALID v. GURUNG DURGA BAHADUR AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Zarir Khalid; 1st Defendant: Gurung Durga Bahadur; 2nd Defendant: Trendy Investment Limited trading as Mes Amis
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 July 2015
Case Number
DCPI2562/2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Application to Set Aside Interlocutory and Final Default Judgments (decision)
Outcome
2nd defendant's summonses dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Interlocutory Judgment, Final Judgment, Vicarious Liability (close Connection), Ex Turpi Causa, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Self Defence, Contributory Negligence, Evidence (cctv), Finality of Litigation, Winding Up Petition
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Tort Personal Injury Vicarious Liability Insolvency (winding Up) Setting Aside Default Judgment Interlocutory Judgment Final Judgment +8 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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zarir Khalid

Plaintiff

Gurung Durga Bahadur

1st Defendant

Trendy Investment Limited trading as Mes Amis

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Application to Set Aside Interlocutory and Final Default Judgments (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant has a defence with a real prospect of success sufficient to set aside regularly entered default judgments
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant offered a credible explanation for the defaults
  3. 3 Whether delay, conduct and prejudice to the plaintiff and public policy require refusal to set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any defence with a real prospect of success and provided an unsatisfactory, implausible explanation for the defaults; coupled with prolonged delay, deliberate inaction until enforcement/winding-up threatened, and resultant prejudice to the plaintiff and the public policy of finality, the court exercised its discretion to refuse to set aside the interlocutory and final default judgments and dismissed the 2nd defendant's applications with costs.

Court Disposition

2nd defendant's summonses dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff

Orders

  • 2nd defendant's summons to set aside the interlocutory and final judgments dismissed with costs
  • 2nd defendant's summons for stay of execution dismissed with costs