31 Oct 2017
Service by insertion into the letterbox at Address 3 on 16 June 2016 constituted valid service under Order 10 r 1(2); the defendant failed to provide convincing evidence that he lacked notice and failed to show a real prospect of success on liability; therefore the setting aside summonses must be dismissed.
11 May 2012
The petitions were dismissed because the petitioner failed to comply with r.46(2) by not taking all reasonable steps to bring the Statutory Demands to the debtors' attention: after failing to effect personal service at Hong Kong addresses the petitioner knew of related PRC guarantors and a 2009 restructuring such that simple inquiries (letters/faxes/phone calls) to PRC premises or to the liquidators could reasonably have been made and might have led to personal service; the petitioner did not establish those steps would have been futile.
11 May 2012
The petitions were dismissed because the petitioner failed to comply with r.46(2): after unsuccessful attempts at last‑known Hong Kong addresses it knew of related PRC addresses and the involvement of PRC guarantors and liquidators and did not take reasonable, simple steps (letters, faxes, telephone calls or enquiries with liquidators) to bring the Statutory Demands to the debtors' attention; the failure to show those steps would not have succeeded warranted dismissal with costs.