7 May 2018
鄧康元及另一人 對 許明娥
- Citation
- [2018] HKDC 483
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ547/2017
The court allowed the late appeal but refused to admit the fresh evidence because it was in the defendant's (or her son's) possession before the hearing officer and thus failed the Ladd v Marshall test; found service by posting and by placing documents in the mailbox at an address associated with the defendant's son amounted to valid service so the original judgment was a regular judgment; the defendant's substantive defences (lease 'until government resumption' and alleged priority to purchase) had no real prospect of success as a matter of law (uncertain term void per Lace; alleged priority…