Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acknowledgement of service

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2026

WONG SAU CHUN PRISCILLA 對 MA KAM (BY TIN YUK HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM)

Citation

[2026] HKDC 615
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2973/2021

Because the defendant had validly filed acknowledgements of service and defences before the appointment of a guardian ad litem and the plaintiff did not make any substantive amendment to the statement of claim, those earlier filings remained effective; the guardian's failure to instruct a solicitor was an irregularity that did not invalidate the prior filings, so default judgment was not appropriate and the court would not enter judgment against the defendant.
10 Jun 2025

CMB WING LUNG BANK LTD v. LEUNG WAI YAN LINDAR, be appointed to represent the estate of LEUNG KWOK HONG, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKDC 930
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2724/2024

The court held that the Master had jurisdiction under O 15 r 6A(4)(b) to make inquiries and direct further submissions regarding the Carry On Order and service; the purported acknowledgment of service was defective because it was on behalf of unidentified 'Personal Representatives' and did not satisfy post-carry-on service requirements, so judgment could not be entered for the plaintiff and the Master's directions were appropriate; appeal dismissed.
24 Apr 2025

CHAN SAU HA v. LEUNG ON YU

Citation

[2025] HKDC 676
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1493/2023

Default judgment was regular; contemporaneous WhatsApp records and inconsistent, inherently implausible affirmations demonstrate the transfer was a loan and the defendant's account lacks a realistic prospect of success; accordingly the Master's order setting aside the default judgment is set aside and the plaintiff's appeal is allowed.
28 Dec 2023

林馬光對律政司司長

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1717/2023

The defendant filed a valid acknowledgement of service within the statutory period (8 Nov 2023) and the deadline for filing a defence was extended by the court pending the defendant's strike‑out application; accordingly the plaintiff's application for entry of final judgment was premature and did not satisfy the conditions of the High Court Rules, so the judgment summons was dismissed and costs ordered against the plaintiff.
30 May 2022

YOUNG CRYSTAL LTD AND OTHERS v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1589
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1710/2021

Form 14 is not a peremptory 'unless' order or a court judgment or order and therefore does not attract automatic sanctions; RHC O.18 r.2(1) fixes the defence filing deadline as 28 days after the time limited for acknowledging service (effectively 42 days from service where claim endorsed), the Master had jurisdiction to grant the extension of time and the court, on rehearing, grants that extension and dismisses the appeal.
22 Feb 2022

GUANGDONG YINGGAO SHIPPING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 554
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1677/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced were misconceived and had no real prospect of success: the July order was not an 'unless' order so relief from sanction under O.2 r.4/O.2 r.5 did not arise; Form 14 did not impose a self-executing sanction nor override the July order; acknowledgement of service did not create a distinct peremptory consequence terminating proceedings; the master had jurisdiction to grant a retrospective extension under O.3 r.5 and this court, exercising its discretion afresh, properly concluded the extension was appropriate.
11 Mar 2020

LEE KWAI TAI (李桂娣) also known as LI KWAI TAI v. CHAN TSUI SHAN (陳翠珊) representing the estate of LEE KWAI TAI (李桂娣) also known as LI KWAI TAI, Deceased

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 4
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/2019

The Court upheld the Court of Appeal: the deputy judge’s exercise of discretion was vitiated by error of law because he relied on his subjective intention regarding the binding effect of the probate judgment (an irrelevant consideration) and mischaracterised the appellant’s conduct thereby failing to take relevant considerations into account; the Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to exercise the discretion afresh and correctly refused relief; appeal dismissed.
6 Dec 2018

ZHAO YONGKUI v. ZHANG CAIHUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2680
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2281/2017

The summons was dismissed because (1) the service was valid: the only plausible reading of the evidence is that D2 was told he was served with a writ and he filed an Acknowledgement of Service; and (2) the forum non conveniens stay failed because D2 produced no proper expert evidence identifying a specific Mainland court willing and able to hear the dispute and, even if such a forum existed, staying proceedings as to D2 only would be inappropriate given related Hong Kong proceedings against D3; costs and an unless order were therefore appropriate.
5 Mar 2018

LI CHEONG v. LEE KWAI TAI also known as LI KWAI TAI

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP32/2012

The Notice was validly served on the intended intervener; by operation of Order 15 r.13A(4) she was bound by the CFI judgment as if a party and the court could not simply remove that binding effect. Balancing prejudice, delay and the bona fides of the intervener's claim, the court exercised discretion to allow a narrow procedural remedy: the intervener was granted 7 days to file an acknowledgement of service so that the CFI judgment would cease to bind her and her application to set aside would be heard with or after the New Action.
6 Mar 2017

RE SI RONG BIN

Citation

RE SI RONG BIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7910/2016

Debtor failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence or to make proper procedural use of adjournments and supporting evidence; the open offer to pay corroborated indebtedness; accordingly there was no defence and the court made a bankruptcy order against the debtor.