Mcgraw-hill, Inc. v. M.S. Chopra

HCA003353/1981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Mantell J. (In Chambers)

Date of Hearing: 3rd May, 1984.

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 3rd May, 1984.

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 19 rule 7 for judgment in default of defence.  It is an action which has had a tortuous history. The plaintiff is a publisher of various periodicals and magazines. At one time, the defendant was employed by the plaintiff as one of their representatives in the East. But after his employment with the plaintiff came to an end, the defendant continued to act as though he was still employed or so the Statement of Claim alleges. In consequence, he was able, so it is said, to collect subscriptions from various of the plaintiff's customers for their periodicals and magazines and it is also said that by holding himself out as the representative in this way, they suffered certain damage. They suffered some damage which can be quantified in that they felt it incumbent upon to pay back those persons who had parted with their money. That, in any rate, is the claim and it is thought that there may be other instances where subscriptions have been collected of which the plaintiff has no knowledge at the present time. That is an outline of the claim disclosed by the Writ and Statement of Claim. There has been no pleading in response, but going back over a number of years, there have been various proceedings connected with the action. I mention in passing that at one time the defendant gave his undertaking not to continue to act as he had been doing and it was held subsequently that he had been in breach of that undertaking. He was fined $30,000. He has not paid the $30,000 and there is voluminous correspondence between the defendant and various officials of this court.

2. I am satisfied from reading the affidavit of Tang Ping Kwong that the defendant has been served with the summons which I am presently entertaining in accordance with the directions given for service by the Master on 5th April 1984, which was by post to the defendant's last known address in Hong Kong and to his address in India. It is apparent that service was effected because the defendant has sent a telegram to the court bearing the date 28th April 1984 saying with reference to the action and the notice from Johnson, Stokes and Master who are the plaintiff's solicitors that 3rd May is too short notice and asking for a sufficient postponement to arrange for a defence.  I do not propose to allow the defendant any further time since he has not had the courtesy either to attend here today to make the application for adjournment or to instruct anyone on his behalf to do so and because I have no reason to think that there has been insufficient time for him to comply with the rules both in relation to the filing of the defence or presenting his argument before me today. Consequently, I propose to give judgment pursuant to Order 19 rule 7 in the terms of a draft order which has been submitted and as is now amended and initialled by me.

Representation:

Warren Chan instructed by Johnson, Stokes & Master for plaintiff.

Defendant - absent.