Read the full judgment text of HCCT81/2001 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 11 January 2002 before Hon Ma J.
Procedure — Construction and arbitration proceedings — Default judgment and extension of time — Order 19, rule 8A requires two clear days’ notice of intention to enter default judgment — Application for extension of time does not stop time running nor prevent default judgment — Importance of timely application for extension emphasized — Court may adjourn default judgment application to be heard with extension application to avoid inefficiency. Plaintiff served writ and statement of claim; defendant failed to serve Defence by due date citing complexity, change of solicitor, and Christmas season but promptly applied for extension. Master Cannon adjourned default judgment application. Hon Ma J granted extension for filing Defence and awarded costs to plaintiff. Key issue was appropriate court approach when default judgment and extension applications co-exist; court stressed defendants must comply strictly with time limits and apply for extension promptly to avoid risk of default judgment. Costs awarded to plaintiff notwithstanding extension granted.
Legal issues: Approach to applications for default judgment vs extension of time
Outcome: Defendant granted extension of time to file Defence and Counterclaim within 14 days; costs of both summonses awarded to plaintiff.
Cited by 1 case