22 Apr 2021
Default judgment was refused because the factual issues overlap between defaulting and non-defaulting defendants, an injunction ordering removal of structures would affect others and third party occupants who have not been notified might seek to join; the court therefore exercised its discretion to stand the summons over until trial and ordered costs in the cause.
7 Dec 2018
Although service on D2 and D3 was found to have brought the writ to their notice, the court exercised its discretion to refuse default judgment because a substantive common defence raised by D1 — that the Facility Agreement may be unenforceable or contain extortionate default interest under the Money Lenders Ordinance — is central to the claims against the guarantors; entry of default judgment against D2 and D3 before trial would be undesirable and potentially prejudicial. The application was therefore stood over to trial.
8 Feb 2017
The court exercised its discretion under Order 19 r.7 to refuse to enter final judgment or declaratory relief at this stage despite deemed admissions because the declarations sought would impute fraudulent conduct and the factual issues materially overlap with matters the 2nd defendant has put in issue and which are likely to be decided at trial; accordingly the matter must be left for determination by the trial judge in the light of evidence.