Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Default judgment and setting aside

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2022

CHONG PUI CHEONG v. CHONG PUI KWONG the Administrator of the estate of CHANG IN, Deceased

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA240/2013

The default judgment was regularly entered and should not be set aside because the defendant failed to produce credible affidavit evidence showing a real prospect of success; the court has jurisdiction under s.25A HCO to order the defendant to execute documents to apply for Housing Authority consent and to effect transfer, and to authorise the Registrar to execute the documents if the defendant refuses after 21 days; accordingly defendant's summons to set aside is dismissed and plaintiff's summons is granted in the terms ordered.
28 Mar 2022

VER, ROGER KEITH v. OKEX FINTECH CO LTD (formerly known as KIND CASTLE TRADING LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 468
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV630/2020

The appeal was allowed because the defendants' final, detailed undertaking of 9 February 2022 removed any live issue about the Version 8 Agreement and thereby removed any practical basis for maintaining the 2nd defendant as a necessary or proper party; accordingly the Court set aside the order granting leave to serve the 2nd defendant out of the jurisdiction under RHC O.11 r.1(1)(c) and (d)(iii).
8 Sept 2020

NEW CASTLE INVESTMENTS LTD v. WFC HOLDING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 755
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP52/2020

Clause 5.03 does not effect an automatic extinguishment or set-off of the tenant's liability for rent; it creates a deemed reduction in the amount of the deposit for the limited purposes of calculating the sum repayable under clause 5.04 and giving the landlord a right to demand topping-up. On that construction the defendants had no real prospect of success and the Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, restored the Default Judgment and granted leave (including brief extension of time) to appeal.
15 Jan 2018

WEI WEI v. CHI CHIH TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 57
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI990/2015

The application to add Tsang was dismissed because the plaintiff had knowledge by April 2016 (imputed knowledge from her solicitors), had no satisfactory explanation for failing to apply before limitation expired, and could not now advance inconsistent claims after obtaining default judgment against the 2nd defendant; the abrogation request was refused for lack of statutory basis and because default judgment already operates to bar defence unless set aside; the third‑party disclosure request failed for procedural non‑compliance with Order 24 r7A and lack of demonstrated relevance or necessity.
12 Jan 2018

PRIMECREDIT LTD V. HON WAI KAN

Citation

[2018] HKDC 49
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2251/2011

Court declined to admit the fresh evidence (Evidence Summons) because Ladd v Marshall tests were not satisfied and awarded costs of that summons to the plaintiff; the extension of time for the appeal would have been granted but Hon must pay costs of the Time Summons; the DCMP appeal was not unmeritorious and, subject to extension of time, its costs should be borne by the plaintiff; the First and Second Joinder Summonses were unnecessary duplication and their costs are awarded to the plaintiff; all costs to be taxed if not agreed; certificate for counsel awarded for the specified costs orders.
4 Sept 2008

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LINK REGENT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LINK REGENT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4518/2003

Order 6 r.8 cannot be used to extend writ validity from the date of the Master’s order long after expiry; however the court has inherent jurisdiction to dispense with service of writs even after the period for valid service has expired where justice requires it; applying that principle, the Master properly dispensed with service but erred in ordering a renewed 12-month extension of validity, so that paragraph was set aside while the remainder of the order was upheld.
30 Jun 2006

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1807/2005

The court found that the plaintiff had established a good arguable case on the Guarantee claim and demonstrated a real risk of dissipation by the 2nd defendant based on the timing and nature of the transfer of shares, the attempted sale of the building, the 2nd defendant's involvement in related company and bank matters, multiple ongoing litigations and imminent substantial estate distributions; accordingly it was just and convenient to grant the mareva injunction sought, subject to previously ordered exceptions and the plaintiff's cross-undertaking.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHONG PUI CHEONG v. CHONG PUI KWONG the Administrator of the estate of CHANG IN, Deceased

VER, ROGER KEITH v. OKEX FINTECH CO LTD (formerly known as KIND CASTLE TRADING LTD) AND ANOTHER

NEW CASTLE INVESTMENTS LTD v. WFC HOLDING LTD AND OTHERS

WEI WEI v. CHI CHIH TONG AND ANOTHER

PRIMECREDIT LTD V. HON WAI KAN

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LINK REGENT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD AND OTHERS