Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irregular judgment

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2013

ZIG ZIG BOUTIQUE LTD v. WONG CHIU LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZIG ZIG BOUTIQUE LTD v. WONG CHIU LAM AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2630/2011

The court found the defendants discharged the burden of proving the default judgment was irregular because the writ was not brought to their notice at the material time; accordingly the judgment was set aside as of right. Exercising the residual discretion to impose reasonable terms (having regard to the defendants' conduct and delays, particularly the 1st defendant's conduct), the court ordered D1 to pay HK$250,000 and D2 to pay HK$50,000 into court by 28 February 2013, failing which the respective judgments shall stand; on payment the defendants must file defences and the plaintiff may repl…
18 Sept 2012

TSAI WEN CHIN t/a ZHUANG JI FOOD TRADE CO v. ZHAO YIE

Citation

TSAI WEN CHIN t/a ZHUANG JI FOOD TRADE CO v. ZHAO YIE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1191/2011

The default judgment was set aside because the affirmation of service was materially defective (failing to state letter‑box insertion and the mandatory 7‑day knowledge opinion) and the defendant was not within Hong Kong at the relevant time so service by letter box was ineffective; these defects rendered the judgment irregular and entitled the defendant as of right to have it set aside.
29 May 2008

UCCA FORMWORK (HK) LTD v. WUI FAI ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

UCCA FORMWORK (HK) LTD v. WUI FAI ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5220/2007

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the Defendant's witnesses and rejected the process server's account because the physical evidence (uniform 2 mm gap, stapled 22‑page package, failed demonstrations) made the Plaintiff's service story unreliable; therefore the judgment was irregular and was set aside; additionally the Defendant's defence had a real prospect of success if required.
22 Dec 2006

POINTPIPER INVESTMENT LTD v.THE SUN\'S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

POINTPIPER INVESTMENT LTD v.THE SUN\'S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3512/2006

The Court set aside the default interlocutory judgment because Plaintiff's conduct (offering an extension conditioned on a consent summons, subsequent silence, implied representation that the matter was pending, filing for default judgment and failing to disclose these communications to the Court) rendered the judgment irregular and misled the Court as to service and notice; alternatively, even if procedural regularity stood, the Defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success on the merits because the assignment and Deed of Mutual Covenant established Proper Investment's exclusive right/ow…
23 Dec 2002

LAU CHI WANG JAMES AND OTHERS v. IP FOOK CHUEN THOMAS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU CHI WANG JAMES AND OTHERS v. IP FOOK CHUEN THOMAS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA18950/1998

The court held the entry of judgment was irregular and must be set aside because (1) the claimed sum was not a liquidated demand but required accounting and inquiry, so judgment for a specific figure was improper; and (2) the unless order was a time order and the affirmation filed on 20 November 2001 constituted at least substantial compliance such that the plaintiffs should have sought relief inter partes rather than entering ex parte judgment. The 2nd defendant nonetheless had failed personally to file an affidavit but her failure was not contumelious and time was extended for compliance.
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).
21 Dec 2001

Leung Yuk-kit, Pecky v. Tse Wai-kei, Wicky

Citation

Leung Yuk-kit, Pecky v. Tse Wai-kei, Wicky
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ426/2001

Judge accepted the process server's sworn account that the writ was inserted into a letter box on 9 January but found that the defendant did not reside at 409 Jaffe Road and did not receive or learn of the proceedings until enforcement; because the defendant lacked notice, the judgment was irregular and therefore set aside as of right; costs awarded 'in the cause' because the defendant contributed to the misapprehension by supplying the business card and incorrect company address.
31 May 2001

COSEC NOMINEES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAU HON MING ALAN

Citation

COSEC NOMINEES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAU HON MING ALAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9775/2000

Hang Fa Chuen was the address last known to the plaintiffs at time of service; defendant did not have notice of the writ before default judgment; the default judgment was therefore irregular due to defective service and must be set aside without inquiry into merits; judgment is set aside unconditionally and costs awarded to defendant after 7 February 2001.
19 Oct 2000

Treasure Land Property Consultants Ltd. v. Lee Po Ting and Another

Citation

Treasure Land Property Consultants Ltd. v. Lee Po Ting and Another
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2102/1998

Service at the Subject Premises was invalid because defendants did not live or work there and the premises were occupied by a tenant who had no obligation to forward mail; accordingly the writ was not properly served, the resulting judgment was irregular and must be set aside as of right under Hong Kong authority.
10 Aug 2000

Ricacorp Properties Ltd. v. Tang Lai Sheung

Citation

Ricacorp Properties Ltd. v. Tang Lai Sheung
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ18949/1998

Because the plaintiff knew the defendant lived at Prince Edward Road and had no intention to live at Parc Oasis, service at Parc Oasis was neither the usual nor the last known address; therefore the default judgment obtained after that service was irregular and must be set aside as of right without consideration of the merits (following Chu Kam-lun v Yap).