Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside irregular judgment

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2025

YEUNG WING KWONG v. LEE JIA RUI SABRINA LEE, appointed by order dated 6th June 2023 to represent the estate of CHOI WAI KONG, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKDC 157
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1372/2020

The default judgment was set aside by consent; there was no blameworthy conduct by either party (the irregularity resulted from an improbable coincidence of death), the plaintiff was not culpable for failing to conduct an updated death search in the circumstances, and the court exercised its discretion on costs by ordering no order as to costs.
11 Oct 2021

NG CHUN SANG also known as NG CHUN SUNG AND ANOTHER v. PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO. 544 AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF LOT NO. 539 BOTH IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 77 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1274
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3463/2018

Service was ineffective because mail sent to the address given by the 2nd defendant was returned as incomplete/non-existent and the plaintiffs had or could have used an alternative known address (Fanling), therefore the earlier summary judgment was irregular and set aside; the plaintiffs' proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal is refused; the variation of the costs order nisi is refused and costs follow the event in favour of the 2nd defendant.
3 Aug 2021

YU PUI PUI PRISCILLA AND ANOTHER v. CHOW HEI YIN DEREK

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 56
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD843/2021

The earlier judgment dated 8 July 2021 was set aside for irregularity; on the merits the Tribunal held the respondent did not validly surrender the tenancy by vacating and returning keys without the applicants' consent, the alleged defect (foul smell) did not establish a right to terminate the fixed-term tenancy, and therefore the respondent remained liable for rent at $36,000 per month from 28 May 2021 until delivery of vacant possession; costs of $1,200 awarded to applicants and conditional relief from forfeiture granted if arrears and costs paid by the specified relief date.
28 May 2021

JINGDONG SECURITIES LTD formerly known as EWIN ASIA CAPITAL LTD v. GOLDEN WORLD MOTORS (INTERNATIONAL) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 636
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5041/2018

Master had no power under O25 r4 to enter judgment on the counterclaim against a non-appearing plaintiff; the Judgment on Counterclaim was therefore irregular and was set aside; the plaintiff demonstrated good reason (missed notice due to solicitors sending to old address plus Covid-19 and staff turnover) to restore its claim out of time; court exercised discretion to restore the claim, refused the defendant's substantial security for costs, and imposed an unless order to progress the action.
26 Sept 2017

JANET ELIZABETH NICHOL v. LEE SIK PO KELVIN

Citation

JANET ELIZABETH NICHOL v. LEE SIK PO KELVIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2254/2013

Although the judgment and charging orders were irregular because the defendant was outside the jurisdiction when service was effected, the defendant's prolonged and unexplained delay, partial evasive conduct, prejudice caused to the plaintiff and the real risk of empty enforcement justified imposing a substantial financial condition. The court therefore set aside the Judgment, Charging Order Nisi and Charging Order Absolute conditional on payment of 75% of the Judgment Sum into court within 35 days and granted leave to defend upon compliance with specified time limits; costs orders were made…
27 Nov 2012

DU HUIZHEN v. CHEN MEI HUAN

Citation

DU HUIZHEN v. CHEN MEI HUAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1176/2012

Service by insertion through the letter box was defective because the defendant was not within Hong Kong when the writ was served; subsequent notice of the proceedings does not cure that defect; accordingly the default judgment was irregular and must be set aside unconditionally given the plaintiff's conduct and lack of good faith in pursuing default judgment.
16 Jul 2009

HAIFA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CO LTD v. CONCORD STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HAIFA INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CO LTD v. CONCORD STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2308/2006

Service by insertion into the letter-box on 8 October 2007 was invalid because the defendant was not in Hong Kong on that date; the seven-day deeming provision cannot be postponed to commence upon the defendant's later return; therefore the default judgment of 8 November 2007 was irregular and must be set aside unconditionally.
16 Feb 2004

HO CHI CHING v. SAIKY CO LTD

Citation

HO CHI CHING v. SAIKY CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC149/2002

The 17 April 2002 document constituted a valid answer despite non‑compliance with Form 5 because it stated the substance and grounds of opposition; once a proper answer has been filed the court could not enter judgment on liability against the respondent merely because he failed to attend the first hearing, therefore the judgment dated 3 May 2002 was irregular and must be set aside.
5 Dec 2002

KWAN TAT CHUNG v. HO CHEUK KUWN t/a FAT FAI ENGINEERING CO. AND OTHERS

Citation

KWAN TAT CHUNG v. HO CHEUK KUWN t/a FAT FAI ENGINEERING CO. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI381/2002

Because the defendants filed an Acknowledgement of Service containing a Notice of Intention to Defend before the interlocutory judgment was entered, that filing, though late, was effective to preclude entry of default judgment; the interlocutory judgment incorrectly stated no notice had been given and was therefore irregular and must be set aside.