Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court set aside the knowing receipt part of a default judgment, upheld liability for unlawful means conspiracy, and adjourned amendment issues with costs orders.
The District Court set aside a default judgment after finding service by mailbox insertion was irregular because the defendant was outside Hong Kong throughout the relevant period.
The court set aside a default judgment after finding service by letterbox was irregular because the defendant was not within the jurisdiction when served.
The Court allowed a limited amendment to a sealed judgment to reflect the parties’ shareholding dispute, continued a Mareva injunction with a revised ceiling, and refused discharge, variation, fortification, and stay.
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) and no other compelling reason to hear the appeal; several summonses were not shown to have been properly served; the proceedings are limited to compensation under s9, s10 and s10A of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, so the asserted separate monetary claims fell outside the scope; accordingly the five summonses were set aside and leave denied.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance dismissed an appeal against refusal to set aside a default judgment and refusal of relief from sanctions in a money-lending debt claim.
Court made a winding up order against Ever Harmony Enterprises Limited, refusing leave to file late opposition evidence and rejecting any bona fide debt dispute.
The court refused a stay pending appeal against a default judgment for vacant possession, finding no real prospect of success on service or adverse possession.
The Court of First Instance set aside a default judgment in an email fraud case because the statement of claim was served before valid service of the writ out of jurisdiction.
The summons to set aside the judgment was dismissed because the defendant's excuse for non‑attendance was not credible, he had no real prospect of success based on the evidence and inconsistencies, the fresh evidence was not admissible at this stage, and setting aside would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff (including undoing possession/enforcement and the bankruptcy outcome); moreover the Official Receiver is the proper party to represent the bankrupt's interests and had taken a neutral stance.
Source excerpt
Explore more
