Overseas Trust Bank Ltd. v. Moral Tact Co. Ltd. and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1254/2000 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 October 2001.
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the order of the master dated 8 June 2001 dismissing their application to set aside the default judgment entered against them on 13 October 2000.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCMP001254/2000 HCMP1254/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.1254 OF 2000 -------------------------
-------------------------
------------------------- Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Poon in Chambers Date of Hearing: 23 October 2001 Date of Ruling: 23 October 2001 ---------------- R U L I N G ---------------- 1.This is an appeal by the defendants against the order of the master dated 8 June 2001 dismissing their application to set aside the default judgment entered against them on 13 October 2000. 2.The defendants were all absent at the hearing before me on 23 October 2001. By a letter dated 10 October 2001, the 1st defendant (also purportedly on behalf of the 3rd defendant) applied to Chung J for adjournment of the appeal until the end of January 2002 on the ground that the 3rd defendant had recently undergone a major heart surgery and on medical advice, he should not travel until the end of this year. On 11 October 2001 Chung J directed that unless the application was made by consent of all parties concerned, it should be made in accordance with the usual procedure, in particular, Order 32, rule 1, Rules of the High Court. No proper application pursuant to the direction had been taken out. 3.At the hearing before me, Mr Pang appearing for the plaintiff naturally opposed the application for adjournment by letter. 4.In my view, as a matter of procedure, the application for adjournment should be properly made by summons and supported by affidavit with medical evidence. Despite the direction of Chung J, that was not done. As a matter of substance, the reasons advanced in the letter were bare allegations without any medical evidence in support. In any event, there is no reason why the 1st and 4th defendants do not appear. 5.Accordingly, I refuse to adjourn. The defendants being absent, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs, to be taxed if not agreed on an indemnity basis, pursuant to the relevant provisions in the mortgages and the guarantee.
Representation: M K.K. Pang, instructed by Messrs S.K. Wong & Lee, for the Plaintiff The 1st Defendant in person, absent The 2nd Defendant in person, absent The 3rd Defendant in person, absent The 4th Defendant in person, absent Remarks: |
Other judgments that cite this case