Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 13 rule 9

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2022

李早珠 AND ANOTHER v. 施純禧

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1451
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ206/2020

The court refused leave because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or another interest of justice: his late, unsupported general denial did not rebut plaintiffs' detailed evidence and convictions; his delay and conduct in complying with court directions and the limited prejudice of injunctions weighed against setting aside the judgment; therefore leave to appeal was dismissed.
23 Jun 2017

NG SIK KAI v. LUI WING LOK t/a WING WAH OIL SHIP CO

Citation

NG SIK KAI v. LUI WING LOK t/a WING WAH OIL SHIP CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1030/2015

Default judgment was set aside because the defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success by adducing potentially credible evidence that the refuelling was unauthorised and done by crew for their own benefit, raising triable issues as to course of employment; no evidence of calculated or malicious delay and no prejudice shown to plaintiff, so discretion to set aside was exercised in favour of defendant while making costs orders.
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.
28 Feb 2000

TANG TAK HONG v. CHEUNG YAT FUK

Citation

TANG TAK HONG v. CHEUNG YAT FUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3265/1996

The court set aside the earlier judgment and granted the defendant leave to defend because the defendant's evidence could not be disregarded, disclosed some reasonable prospects of defence, and there were disputed factual issues that could not be resolved on the papers and required a trial.
15 Oct 1998

NG WAH KWAI IDI AND OTHERS v. TSE YIM HING MARY

Citation

NG WAH KWAI IDI AND OTHERS v. TSE YIM HING MARY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1911/1997

The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because the court found the judgment was regular and the defendant had notice and acted upon it (including removing the wall and attending taxation hearings); the defendant's substantial delay and approbation of the judgment precluded relief under Order 2 r 2(1) and, on the merits, the applicant did not meet the high threshold required under Order 13 r 9 and Premier Fashion to justify setting aside a regular default judgment.
18 Jun 1997

DESIRABLE INTERNATIONAL FASHIONS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. CHIANG SHI CHAU

Citation

DESIRABLE INTERNATIONAL FASHIONS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. CHIANG SHI CHAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7069/1995

Applying the binding Court of Appeal authority in Po Kwong and Order 13 r9, the court adopts the Limited Right Principle: an irregular default judgment may be set aside without inquiring into the merits of the defence but the court may consider conduct and other factors (not merits) and impose terms; here service was ineffective and the judgment was excessive, so the default judgment and consequent execution were set aside unconditionally and repayment ordered.
4 Nov 1971

CHOW CHIU CHEUNG v. HANS JOACHIM BERNICK AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHOW CHIU CHEUNG v. HANS JOACHIM BERNICK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA371/1969

Because the insurer had a direct legal and pecuniary interest and locus standi to ensure proper defences were raised, the court exercised its discretion under Order 15 r.6(2) to add the insurer as a defendant and set aside the default judgment and damages assessment on the condition that the insurer undertakes to pay any damages and may enter appearance and defend the action.

Hong Kong Case Law

李早珠 AND ANOTHER v. 施純禧

NG SIK KAI v. LUI WING LOK t/a WING WAH OIL SHIP CO

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

TANG TAK HONG v. CHEUNG YAT FUK

NG WAH KWAI IDI AND OTHERS v. TSE YIM HING MARY

DESIRABLE INTERNATIONAL FASHIONS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. CHIANG SHI CHAU

CHOW CHIU CHEUNG v. HANS JOACHIM BERNICK AND ANOTHER