Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 19 rule 7

Legal area

Court

15 May 2020

CARDONE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. HAONIGEN TRADE CO., LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 70
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4536/2019

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff established a proprietary claim to the funds paid into the defendant’s account as resulting from alleged email fraud; service was valid and the defendant was in default; a vesting order under s 52 Trustee Ordinance was necessary and appropriate to vest the defendant’s right to claim the account proceeds in the plaintiff to enable recovery; BOCHK could be added as respondent and ordered to pay the amounts, net of bank charges and agreed legal costs, to the plaintiff.
15 Nov 2019

LI KANG HUNG v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF YU CHOI YING, DECEASED

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1536
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1090/2019

The judge found on the facts that the plaintiff had exclusive, open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the whole property since June 2001 with the requisite animus possidendi for over 12 years; accordingly, under s17 Limitation Ordinance the defendant's paper title was extinguished and the plaintiff acquired possessory title, and declarations to that effect were granted; the procedural route via Order 19 rule 7 was appropriate given the defendant's failure to defend.
19 Sept 2018

KWONG WING LAN v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD CHAN otherwise known as CHAN TAK TAI ,DECEASED

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1175
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3379/2015

The amended statement of claim was never served on the defendant so the time for service of a defence never began to run; therefore the two preconditions of Order 19, rule 7 were not satisfied and the plaintiff's application for default judgment is dismissed.
2 Mar 2018

ERWIANA SULISTYANINGSIH v. TSUI YUN BUN BARRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2256/2015

The 1st defendant's witness statement constituted an effective withdrawal of his defence amounting to default; because the plaintiff's claim against the defendants was non-severable and she had to prosecute the action at trial to obtain judgment against the defaulting transferee, the ordinary rule that defendants share joint and several liability for costs applies and there were no special circumstances to depart from that rule, so both defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff's costs (with an order nisi as to the 1st defendant's costs of this application).
22 Dec 2017

YAU KAR KWAI v. SHAN JIGESH RAJNIBHAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

YAU KAR KWAI v. SHAN JIGESH RAJNIBHAI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4752/2017

The summons for default judgment under Order 19, rule 7 was premature because it was issued before the expiration of the period fixed for service of the defence; rule 7 expressly requires the application to be made only after that period, and the court must reject attempts to circumvent that requirement.
9 Jun 2017

WONG PUI LING v. LEUNG KIT FUN BEATRICE BENEDICT AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG PUI LING v. LEUNG KIT FUN BEATRICE BENEDICT AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4784/2014

The plaintiff proved both the intention to possess and continuous exclusive physical possession of the land for over 12 years; accordingly, by operation of sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance the defendants' title was extinguished and the court properly granted declaratory relief under Order 19, rule 7 without a trial given the plaintiff's genuine need and absence of any defence.
30 Oct 2002

PUN KAN TAI v. WONG YUE SHUN

Citation

PUN KAN TAI v. WONG YUE SHUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ13222/2001

Because the claim depends on disputed facts (an alleged oral trust, origins of the down payment and implications of s5 CPO) and the defendant only later obtained representation and put forward a plausible defence, the court exercised its discretion under Order 19 Rule 7 to refuse judgment on the pleadings and allowed the defendant to defend.
3 Aug 1998

CHITLINK ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLDEN EDGE ENTERPRISE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHITLINK ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLDEN EDGE ENTERPRISE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13902/1997

The court found a procedural irregularity: the master should not have entered final injunctive relief without referral to a judge and a summons allowing the defendants to be heard; exercising its discretion in light of the circumstances and delay, the court set aside the judgment and ordered the defendants to file their pleadings by the specified deadline.