Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Meritorious defence

Legal area

Court

25 Jul 2025

LAU TAK LUN AND ANOTHER v. HO KA YAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1243
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7604/2024

Service by insertion into the Defendant's letterbox was effective and the interlocutory judgment was regular; notwithstanding regularity, the Defendant demonstrated meritorious defences with realistic prospects of success because the publications were to a very limited internal audience and likely caused no serious reputational harm, and there is credible contemporaneous evidence (disputed employer identity, unpaid salary and cessation of business) supporting justification; accordingly the court set aside the default judgment and granted unconditional leave to defend.
5 Sept 2023

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LEE CHI MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1202
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3712/2020

Although plaintiff complied with prescribed modes of service, the 2nd defendant's contemporaneous personal circumstances and prompt engagement after learning of the proceedings made her assertion of lack of actual notice credible; accordingly the default judgment as against the 2nd defendant was irregular and was set aside as of right. However, on the evidence the 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence or very great hardship to prevent an order for sale; costs of the setting aside application are apportioned as stated.
30 May 2022

VICTORY SUCCESS TRADING LTD v. CHEUNG KIN YING

Citation

[2022] HKDC 440
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ714/2020

Service was regular because evidence showed repeated Joint Office correspondence and investigations addressed to the defendant's property and the defendant failed to provide compelling evidence of non‑receipt or an alternative usual address; the defendant also failed to show a meritorious defence because independent Joint Office and plaintiff experts established seepage from the defendant's bathroom and the defendant's expert report was preliminary and did not negate prior findings; accordingly the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
27 Jan 2022

KWONG MAN HEI v. FOK SIN YEE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA981/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant executed the IOU, received HK$9 million payable to the plaintiff as Lender, failed to deposit share certificates as required and failed to comply with a demand for repayment; the defendant did not establish a meritorious defence nor provide a reasonable explanation for failing to defend, and agency/nominee status of the plaintiff did not prevent enforcement of the IOU.
29 Sept 2021

LAI WAI HA v. TAM KWOK MAN BENNY

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1210
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5939/2019

The final judgment dated 27 August 2020 was set aside because (1) the court accepted that the defendant had not been brought to notice of the proceedings when judgment was entered, rendering the judgment irregular and requiring setting aside ex debito justitiae, and (2) alternatively, even if service had been effective, the defendant demonstrated a meritorious defence that the pleaded absolute guarantee did not exist and the pleaded case contained material defects; accordingly the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend.
23 Jun 2020

NANYANG COMMERCIAL BANK, LTD v. LIN ZHUO YAN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2132/2018

Service by registered post to the defendant's last known address was valid and the presumption of service under Order 10 r1(3) was not rebutted; the Default Judgment was therefore regular; the defendant failed to prove a meritorious defence (including unconscionability) and offered no satisfactory explanation for delay; the master's dismissal was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.
31 May 2019

NGAI SIN FAT v. KEUNG FUK YAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 711
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ228/2018

Defendants failed to produce convincing evidence that they did not receive the writ and related summonses delivered to their last known address; the judgment was therefore regular. Defendants also failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success because they had prior notice and ample opportunity to obtain expert evidence and adduce contrary proof but did not do so. Accordingly the court refused to exercise its discretion to set aside the default judgment and dismissed the summons.
15 Nov 2016

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. YEUNG MEI CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. YEUNG MEI CHUN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ398/2014

The court found the 1st and 2nd defendants demonstrated a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success such that the default judgment should be set aside; consequentially the charging order nisi and absolute, their registration, the order for possession and the writ of possession were discharged and set aside; defendants granted leave to file a Defence and costs awarded to the plaintiff in any event with taxation directions for certain costs.
3 Jun 2016

SUN CRYSTAL LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FENG FONG BUILDING AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUN CRYSTAL LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FENG FONG BUILDING AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM184/2015

The Default Judgment was regular because the NOA and Written Request were properly served by ordinary post and insertion into the letter box in accordance with the Lands Tribunal Rules and the affirmation of service complied with Form 30; the 2nd respondent failed to prove non‑receipt and failed to show a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success; accordingly the application to set aside the Default Judgment was dismissed and no stay of execution was granted.
30 Mar 2015

GLORY WEALTH INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GRAND RICH INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GLORY WEALTH INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GRAND RICH INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2760/2014

The court held that service on the 2nd defendant was ineffective because the 1st defendant had moved business address before service; therefore the default judgment against the 2nd defendant was irregular and set aside as of right. Independently, both defendants demonstrated meritorious defences with a real prospect of success because the plaintiff produced no evidence of the Assignment of Debt or any guarantee and there was prima facie evidence that the debt related to Host Glory and was to be settled by the developer; accordingly the default judgment against both defendants was set aside on…