Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside judgments

Legal area

Court

21 Jun 2023

THE YERRID LAW FIRM v. QIANSBAIZI TRADING LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 788
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV170/2021

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the default judgment and garnishee order conditionally because Tin Tat had credible evidence giving reasonable prospects of establishing it received the funds as an agent and the illegality arguments were not sufficiently clear or suitable for summary determination; accordingly the appropriate remedy was conditional setting aside upon Tin Tat paying US$200,000 into court within 28 days (with liberty to apply), leaving the substantive legal issues for trial or further hearing.
26 Jul 2022

劉互慈 v. 張永輝（張偉賢之遺產執行人）

Citation

[2022] HKDC 768
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2990/2020

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate any defence with a real prospect of success or other discretionary reason to set aside a regularly entered default judgment; the plaintiff produced credible documentary evidence of the loans and the defendant's limitation defence based on a 31/12/2013 accrual date had no real prospect of success (date taken out of context and due date could have been varied or be as late as July 2014); accordingly the Subject Order dismissing the Setting Aside Summons was upheld, costs awarded to the plaintiff and interim stay on the Chargin…
7 Aug 2020

RE ALLAN YAP

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1946
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7289/2019

The debtor failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds with sufficiently precise and believable evidence; the guarantees contain express terms declaring them legal, valid and binding and the warning notices and surrounding objective circumstances contradict the debtor's claim of lack of intention or inducement; there was no credible evidence of the alleged representation by Huarong representatives; accordingly the petitions succeed and a bankruptcy order is made.
11 Mar 2019

BAH MOHAMED BACHIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 280
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV556/2018

Because the applicant produced documentary evidence showing the court had dispatched the wrong notice of hearing, the presumption of effective service was rebutted; the error was clerical and within the court's power to correct under Order 20 rule 11, and consequently the earlier judgment was set aside and the appeal remitted for a new hearing with proper notice and an opportunity to lodge a skeleton argument at least 28 days beforehand.
2 Jul 2009

GLOBALINK INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE LTD v. UNIVERSAL SHEEN GROUP LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

GLOBALINK INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE LTD v. UNIVERSAL SHEEN GROUP LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5146/2007

The court held that service at the registered office complied with Companies Ordinance s356 and the judgments were therefore regularly obtained; Universal Sheen failed to show a real prospect of success on the Yick Fung claim so the default judgment in DCCJ 5145/2007 was not set aside; however material and intertwined factual disputes concerning Globalink's alleged loans/advancements and the nature of payments gave Universal Sheen a real prospect of success so the default judgment in DCCJ 5146/2007 was set aside.
17 Dec 2004

RE MAI XI HONG

Citation

RE MAI XI HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB550/1996

Applicant failed to prove the default judgment was irregular or obtained by fraud and did not take steps to have it set aside; a default judgment remains valid until set aside; given the unexplained delay and absence of indisputable evidence that the HK$70,000 reduced the Applicant's liability, the adjudication ought not to be annulled and the application is dismissed.
21 Dec 1984

UNITED MERCHANTS FINANCE LTD. v. TONG SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

UNITED MERCHANTS FINANCE LTD. v. TONG SANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV172/1984

The Court held that the 9 March default judgment was irregular and must be set aside because it was entered before actual default/service and because the District Court Rules (r.22) exclude mixed claims from the default judgment procedure so the court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment on the unliquidated element; the 27 March judgment was also set aside after balancing delay against the defendant's explanations and the fact that the substantive unliquidated claim must be heard on the merits.
26 Apr 1974

AU YEUNG SIU-TUNG AND OTHERS v. TUNG SHING HO (A FIRM) (DECORATION & FURNITURE)

Citation

AU YEUNG SIU-TUNG AND OTHERS v. TUNG SHING HO (A FIRM) (DECORATION & FURNITURE)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1/1974

Majority held that dismissal for want of prosecution where the plaintiff failed to attend and no issues were tried did not necessarily determine the merits and therefore did not bar re-presentation by way of a fresh application in the circumstances of this case; although the plaintiff should normally apply to set aside the dismissal, failure to do so did not automatically create an estoppel per rem judicatum when no issues were adjudicated.