30 Sept 2024
LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. MARK DAVID LAMB AND OTHERS
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 1821
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA1646/2023
The writ was not validly served because D1 was not within the jurisdiction when the copy was inserted into the Central Address letter box; electronic communications did not constitute authorised service; absence of expert evidence that company‑recorded director address constituted consent to that mode of service; accordingly the jurisdictional challenge succeeds, default judgment against D1 cannot stand, relief from sanction unnecessary while writ remains unserved, D3/D4 default judgment will be stood over to trial, and VCF application refused.