Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acknowledgment of service

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2022

MAKHSSIAN TRAJAN VAHE v. MAYER BROWN JSM, AU SIMON MING SUED AS “SOLICITOR ASSOCIATE SIMON AU MING”, DAVID MCKELLAR SUED AS “AVOCATE SOLICITOR, DAVID MCKELLAR”

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2897
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA934/2020

The summons is dismissed because the complaints are time‑barred or misconceived: solicitors' appearance in chambers was proper, the Acknowledgment of Service was correctly completed for a non‑monetary claim, the defence filing was legitimately extended pending the strike out, and costs have already been summarily assessed and ordered; thus no relief is available to the plaintiff.
1 Sept 2022

CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LI HAILONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2694
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA508/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the attempted service on the defendant's solicitors was rendered moot by valid service in Shanghai; the defendant failed to discharge the heavy burden required to displace the contractual Hong Kong forum and to show exceptional circumstances or material non-disclosure in the ex parte application; therefore the service out Order stands and the challenge to jurisdiction fails.
1 Feb 2017

DE BEDIN & LEE LLP FORMERLY KNOWN AS DE BEDIN & LEE (A FIRM) v. BRUNO ATZORI

Citation

DE BEDIN & LEE LLP FORMERLY KNOWN AS DE BEDIN & LEE (A FIRM) v. BRUNO ATZORI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4720/2016

The court found the c/o Hong Kong address genuine and service valid, refused to strike out the late acknowledgement or the statement of defence because delay and defects did not cause prejudice or render the defence plainly bad, but granted summary judgment because the plaintiff proved the debt under the engagement letter and the defendant had no arguable defence.
9 Dec 2016

LINK FISH IMPORT & EXPORT S.L. v. MULTIPLY IMPORT & EXPORT HK LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LINK FISH IMPORT & EXPORT S.L. v. MULTIPLY IMPORT & EXPORT HK LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP331/2016

Both parties share responsibility for the striking-out application; because the 1st Defendant should have applied to convert rather than to strike out and the Plaintiff was not to be penalised for commencing by originating summons given the circumstances and guidance from the court, no order as to costs was made for the striking-out summons and the conversion was ordered with costs to be costs in the cause.
27 Sept 2016

梁麗娟對律政司司長

Citation

梁麗娟對律政司司長
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1862/2016

Because the defendant filed an acknowledgment of service within the time limit and indicated that it disputed the proceedings, the statutory condition for entry of judgment under Order 13 did not exist; therefore the registrar's decision to discharge the plaintiff's Order 13 application and to award costs was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Apr 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KINGLAND APARTMENTS v. ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KINGLAND APARTMENTS v. ELTRON DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4545/2015

The plaintiff's application for default judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff did not comply with Order 19 rule 8A: no written notice under the rule was shown to have been served not less than two clear days before entering judgment and no affidavit of service was filed; accordingly, default judgment could not be entered and the summons was dismissed with costs to the defendant, while the court granted a limited extension of seven days for the defendant to file its defence.
8 Oct 2003

JINGJIN SHIPPING CO LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "TIAN XIANG 2 HAO" (PRC FLAG) AND ANOTHER

Citation

JINGJIN SHIPPING CO LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "TIAN XIANG 2 HAO" (PRC FLAG) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ322/2001

The Acknowledgment of Service filed by Ince & Co. on behalf of the alleged beneficial owner (Tian Xiang Warehousing) was set aside because the registered owner (Guangzhou Salvage) was the party whom the plaintiffs alleged would be liable in personam and registration is virtually conclusive of ownership absent fraud; Ince did not represent it had authority from the registered owner and therefore was not liable to the plaintiffs for wasted costs or under Order 62 Rule 8; consequentially the Defence filed on that Acknowledgment is set aside (Order Nisi) and costs of the application were ordered…
26 Apr 2002

RICHIE INTERIORS LTD. v. SANKO TECHNOLOGY LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

RICHIE INTERIORS LTD. v. SANKO TECHNOLOGY LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4365/2001

The acknowledgments of service were not shown to be valid because they were signed by a single director without evidence of board authority and no affidavit proved due service; judgments entered within 14 days were therefore premature and irregular and must be set aside ex debito justitiae without regard to the merits of the underlying claim.
26 Apr 2002

RICHIE INTERIORS LTD. v. SANKO AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERING LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

RICHIE INTERIORS LTD. v. SANKO AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERING LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4366/2001

The acknowledgments of service were invalid or insufficiently evidenced and no affidavit proving due service was filed, so the default judgment was prematurely entered and was irregular; such a judgment must be set aside as of right (ex debito justitiae).
13 Dec 1983

MARVEL TRADING CO AND ANOTHER v. GOLD STAR LINE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MARVEL TRADING CO AND ANOTHER v. GOLD STAR LINE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4161/1982

An acknowledgment of service containing a notice of intention to defend given out of time bars the defendant from proceeding with an O.12 r.8 application without the court's leave; on the merits the Master’s order renewing the writ was discharged because plaintiffs failed to show good and sufficient reason for the extension — the correspondence did not reasonably justify withholding service and the delay between January and May 1983 was unexplained and unreasonable.