2 Jul 2024
The sanctioned offer complied with Order 22, was validly served (delivered 1 August 2023), the defendant did not accept it and produced no evidence that awarding indemnity costs would be unjust; therefore indemnity costs were ordered from 29 August 2023 pursuant to Order 22 rule 24(3).
16 Aug 2021
The correct test for service by registered post is the actual notice test; on the evidence the defendant proved he had no notice of the writ until 8 October 2019, after judgment was entered, so the default judgment was irregular and the master’s unconditional setting aside was correctly upheld (appeal dismissed).
6 May 2015
Service by registered post was valid because the writ was posted to the defendant's usual Hong Kong address, was not returned, and on the balance of probability the defendant acquired knowledge of the writ on 17 April 2009 when he returned to Hong Kong; although the default judgment was regular, the court set it aside because the defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success and there was a risk of injustice if the matter were not adjudicated on its merits.
6 Aug 2012
The Tribunal set aside its 9 July 2012 finding that vacant possession was returned on 15 May 2012 as based on incorrect facts, accepted the applicant's evidence and related postal records, and held that the bailiff, under the Tribunal's 17 May 2012 combined possession and seizure order, returned vacant possession to the applicant on 11 June 2012; therefore the bailiff's account and received payments are approved and issues of damages and the deposit require a full trial.
22 Apr 2010
Rogers VP was plainly right to refuse leave to appeal because the defendants were served by registered post and the decision was delivered on 9 March 2010 making the 22 March application out of time; moreover the substantive leave application was devoid of merit, justifying refusal and the exercise of power under O.59 r.2A(8) to prevent reconsideration.
18 Nov 1998
On the balance of probabilities the court was not satisfied that the statutory notice was either sent and received by registered post or posted on the defendant's premises as required; evidence showed the registered envelope contained a different letter and the clerk's account of posting was insufficiently reliable, therefore the statutory notice was not proved served, the tenancy did not terminate and the plaintiff's claim failed.
18 Jun 1997
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.
20 Jun 1995
Where a default judgment has been obtained against a defendant who in fact was not duly served (the copy writ having been returned undelivered) the judgment must be set aside unconditionally even if obtained before the return; the plaintiff should have applied under O.13 r.7(3) once the writ was returned and a charging order obtained after return was irregular and must be discharged; costs of the defendant's application and appeal to be costs in the cause.
29 Jun 1994
Where a writ is sent by registered post to the defendant's usual or last known address and the postal packets are not returned, service is deemed effective under Order 10 r.1(2)(a) and Cap.1 s.8; a default judgment signed on that basis is regular and the defendant cannot obtain its setting aside as of right without showing a meritorious defence; accordingly the Registrar's order setting aside the judgment was wrong and is set aside on appeal.
20 Oct 1993
The Tribunal held it had power under s.10(2)(d) to enlarge time for serving Form CR102 but found the 12 April 1993 letter did not substantially comply with the prescribed Form CR102; on facts the Form CR101 of 8 December 1992 was not proved to have been received by the Applicant (lack of certificate of posting and convincing evidence), so the tenancy was not duly terminated under Part IV, entitling the Applicant to remain in possession at the contractual rent of HKD 26,000 and resulting in dismissal of the application for a new tenancy.