11 Sept 2023
The summons was adjourned because the evidence of service was insufficient: there was no particularised evidence that the defendant was within the jurisdiction when the writs were inserted or that the insertion brought the proceedings to his attention, rendering the purported service potentially irregular.
26 Sept 2017
Although the judgment and charging orders were irregular because the defendant was outside the jurisdiction when service was effected, the defendant's prolonged and unexplained delay, partial evasive conduct, prejudice caused to the plaintiff and the real risk of empty enforcement justified imposing a substantial financial condition. The court therefore set aside the Judgment, Charging Order Nisi and Charging Order Absolute conditional on payment of 75% of the Judgment Sum into court within 35 days and granted leave to defend upon compliance with specified time limits; costs orders were made…
5 Dec 2001
Where service at a company's Hong Kong offices together with personal service on its director would bring proceedings to the company's notice, such service is permitted and an application for substituted service (to serve at that address and on the director) is unnecessary; the court allowed service as proposed by the applicants.