Lam Yan Fong, Flora v. Ng Pak Zing

HCA 2289/2014

[2019] HKCFI 1805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2289 OF 2014

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.By an order made on 19 September 2018 (“the Order”), the default judgment entered against the Defendant together with its enforcement orders were set aside subject to the condition that “the Defendant do within 21 days from the date hereof provide to the Plaintiff’s solicitors a valid address for service in Hong Kong.” (“the Condition”).

2.On 20 September 2018, the Defendant’s solicitors, Messrs. Or & Lau (“OL”) wrote to the Plaintiff’s solicitors, Messrs. Lam & Co. (“LC”), in which OL said:

“In fulfillment of [the Condition], please be informed that we have standing instruction to accept service of proceedings for the Defendant. Please treat our address as the valid address of service in Hong Kong for the Defendant. We are further instructed to provide you with the following address as a backup address for service in Hong Kong for our client: Unit 1406, 14/F, The Broadway, 54 - 62 Lockhart Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong.”

3.The Plaintiff insists that the said Unit 1406 (“the 1406 Address”) is not a valid address for service and the Condition has not been complied with.

4.On 12 November 2018, the Defendant took out a summons (“the Summons”) for an order that the Condition has been complied with.

5.In my view, the matter is open and shut. The Condition has clearly been complied with.

6.On 20 March 2015, OL filed a Notice to Act in these proceedings. From that time onwards, all the documents in these proceedings have been served on OL, who are the solicitors acting for the Defendant in these proceedings.

7.Clearly, the business address of OL is the Defendant’s valid address for service in Hong Kong. OL has stated the obvious in their letter dated 20 September 2018. It is indisputable that the business address of the solicitors acting for the Defendant in these proceedings is the valid address of the Defendant for service in Hong Kong. The Condition has clearly been complied with.

8.The Plaintiff argues that the 1406 Address is not a valid address for service in Hong Kong. In my view, this is completely beside the point. While OL’s address is the Defendant’s valid address for service in Hong Kong, whether the 1406 Address is or is not a valid address for service in Hong Kong is neither here nor there.

9.For the sake of completeness, even if I am wrong on the above, I am of the view that the 1406 Address is a valid address for service in Hong Kong.

10.The facts concerning the 1406 Address are as follows:

(1)   On 14/F, The Broadway, there is no Unit 1406, but there are 3 companies, one of which is Synergy / United Best Consultant Limited (“Synergy”).

(2)   Synergy is the service company retained by the Defendant to accept service on his behalf. OL has confirmed this in their letter to LC dated 8 October 2018.

(3)   The staff of Synergy has orally confirmed with LC that Synergy would accept service on behalf of the Defendant, but Synergy did not give LC a written confirmation on this issue.

(4)   However, Synergy has provided documents to LC, showing that Synergy is providing service to a company known as Alawoo Limited. That company is solely owned by the Defendant.

11.There is no dispute that a “care of” address can constitute a valid address for service.

12.In these circumstances, I do not see any basis challenging the validity of the 1406 Address as an address for service. If there is any ambiguity in the number “1406”, OL has clarified this in their letter dated 8 October 2018, and this letter was provided to LC within the 21-day period specified in the Condition.

13.The Plaintiff further argues that the Defendant has not promised that there would be no change concerning his address of service, and merely providing a one-off or a transient address for service is not sufficient. This submission is without any legal basis. The Defendant may at any stage in these proceedings file and serve a notice of change of solicitors in accordance with Order 67 rule 1 if he intends to retain another law firm to represent him in these proceedings, or file and serve a notice to act in person in accordance with Order 67 rule 4 if he intends to act in person. There is nothing in the Condition restraining the Defendant from doing so. I do not see any legal basis preventing the Defendant from doing so.

14.In my judgment, there is no merit in the Plaintiff’s objection. OL’s address is the Defendant’s valid address for service in Hong Kong.

15.I give a direction that the Condition has been complied with. Costs should follow the event. I order that costs of the Summons be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant forthwith, and those costs be summarily assessed at HK$50,000.

16.I thank counsel for the assistance rendered to the Court. 

Mr Poon Siu Bunn, instructed by Lam & Co., for the Plaintiff.

Ms Winnie Chan, instructed by Or & Lam., for the Defendant.