8 Jan 2025
The summons for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant's delay was inexcusable (she failed to update her address), she failed to demonstrate any prospect of success or identify errors in the judge's decision, and thus did not meet the threshold for an extension of time.
26 Jun 2023
Because the plaintiff, having changed his address for service to a serviced apartment, had vacated that address and failed to provide a new address for service, he effectively had no address for service and Order 65 rule 9 applied; therefore the taxation documents did not require personal service and no irregularity arose, making the defendants' application unnecessary and service of the present summons and supporting affirmation dispensable.
4 Jun 2021
Extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the applicant failed to provide good grounds for a two‑month delay (including failing to notify a change of address), the intended appeal had no real prospect of success and raised no question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); thus leave to appeal was properly denied and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
23 Dec 2020
The court applied the established test from Ahammed Md Robin requiring assessment of administration of justice, promptness and explanation for non‑compliance and reinforced that failure to provide a correct address ordinarily weighs against granting relief, per Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran.
8 Oct 2020
Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, failed to discharge the duty to maintain a reliable address for service, and the underlying proposed appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success; balancing the statutory factors, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
17 Jul 2019
Because the Defendant's solicitors had filed a Notice to Act and all documents had been served on them, their business address constituted a valid Hong Kong address for service; alternatively, the Unit 1406 address was valid because a service company retained by the Defendant accepted service and evidence supported that arrangement, therefore the Condition was satisfied.
28 Oct 2016
The court waived the appellant's non‑compliance with the requirement to provide a Hong Kong address and ordered substituted service by sending documents to the appellant's local fax number in Thailand; the appellant was ordered to file and serve an amended notice of appeal within two months failing which the appeal will be struck out and costs awarded to the plaintiff; the court granted the plaintiff's application for security for costs in the terms of the summons (with a two‑month period for payment and an interim stay pending payment) and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs o…
8 Nov 2013
The court set aside the notice to act in person because the notice disclosed an address outside Hong Kong and therefore failed to provide the local address for service required in purpose and effect by Order 12 Rules 3 and 4 read with Order 67 Rule 4, following authority in Dianor International Limited and Crestknit.
19 Nov 2010
The Court held that a notice of intention to act in person which specifies an address outside the jurisdiction is defective because Orders 12 and 67 require a defendant acting in person to provide an address for service within the jurisdiction; accordingly the notice dated 27 October 2010 was set aside, service of documents was to continue at the defendant's solicitors' address and the solicitors remain as the defendant's solicitors; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
26 Jun 2007
The Des Voeux Road address was one of the defendant's last known and usual addresses and the writ was apparently delivered there by registered post; the defendant failed to provide convincing evidence of non-receipt or a credible explanation; the default judgment was therefore regular and the defendant did not disclose a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success, so the application to set aside was dismissed.