Ernest Chong Kian v. Chong Yin Sing and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 15070/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 June 2021.
1. This is a hearing for directions concerning the further conduct of these proceedings. As a result of my decision made on 8 March 2021 (“the March Decision”, [2021] HKCFI 599 ), the remaining parties in these proceedings are P2, D1 and D2. The background facts have been set out in the March Decision. For ease of reference, the abbreviations used in the March Decision are adopted herein.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
HCA 15070/1998 [2021] HKCFI 1831 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 15070 OF 1998 ________________________
________________________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge MK Liu in Chambers Date of Hearing: 24 June 2021 Date of Decision: 24 June 2021 ____________________ DECISION ____________________ 1.This is a hearing for directions concerning the further conduct of these proceedings. As a result of my decision made on 8 March 2021 (“the March Decision”, [2021] HKCFI 599), the remaining parties in these proceedings are P2, D1 and D2. The background facts have been set out in the March Decision. For ease of reference, the abbreviations used in the March Decision are adopted herein. 2.In the March Decision, I directed that P2 should file and serve a Notice to Act in Person with a Hong Kong address therein (“the Required NAP”) as soon as practicable, if he intends to act in person in these proceedings. P2 has never indicated that he would retain Hong Kong legal practitioners to represent him in these proceedings. He has also not filed the Required NAP. 3.The following occurred after the March Decision:
4.As I said in [39] of the March Decision, these proceedings have dragged on for more than 22 years. All the remaining parties must take reasonable steps to bring these proceedings to a conclusion as soon as practicable. If P2 is serious in prosecuting his claim, he would try his best to come to Hong Kong to attend the hearings in these proceedings. On 26 April 2021, I informed the parties that there would be a hearing on 24 June 2021. There may be difficulties in travelling from Singapore to Hong Kong while the pandemic is still ongoing. However, given that P2 would have about 2 months to prepare for the trip, I am not convinced that a trip to Hong Kong is not possible or not practicable. For these reasons, I have refused P2’s request to have an adjournment. 5.P2 has chosen to act in person in these proceedings. That is his choice. However, having chosen to act in person, P2 must provide an address in Hong Kong for serving documents on him in these proceedings. He has invoked the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Court and is seeking an order against Ds from this court. P2 has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Court, and he must provide an address in Hong Kong so that documents in these proceedings can be served on him effectively and efficiently. 6.It seems that P2 is insisting that he may file and serve a notice to act in person with a foreign address therein. On the other hand, In D1’s Proposed Directions, D1 is seeking an order which is similar to the Unless Order. In my view, to be fair to all the parties, the court has to give an opportunity to the parties to argue the issue, ie whether P2 may file and serve a notice to act in person with a foreign address, and determine the issue after considering the submissions. 7.I therefore make the following directions:
8.For avoidance of doubt, the view expressed in [5] above should be regarded as preliminary view of the court, which may or may not change after considering the parties’ submissions. 9.I direct D1 to serve a copy of this decision and the order made herein on P2 as soon as practicable. Leave to serve these documents out of jurisdiction is given. 10.Costs reserved. D1’s own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
Mr Charles Chan of Charles Chan & Co, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant The 2nd defendant appeared in person The 2nd plaintiff was not represented and did not appear | |||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 15070/1998