K&LGATES(A FIRM) v. DING YU AND ANOTHER

HCMP 1569/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO1569 OF 2015

____________

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N
_____________

1.  By paragraph 46 of my Decision dated 15 February 2016, I ordered, amongst others, that the originating summons be dismissed.

2.  Before the order was sealed, the plaintiff (“KLG”) requested for clarification as to whether the proper order to be made under paragraph 46 of the Decision is for the originating summons to be dismissed only as against D2.

3.  I have considered the correspondence from the parties between 29 February 2016 and 15 March 2016, copied to D1.  The whole judgment centred on considering the defence raised by D2.  As for D1, he has not filed any acknowledgement of service despite being served.  He did not appear and the proceedings were heard in his absence. As stated in paragraph 18 of the Decision, KLG has demonstrated a prima facie case that the retainer agreement was valid and enforceable.  D1 has not put forth any defence, either to dispute liability or quantum, nor stated any objection to my suggested clarifications to the terms of the Decision stated in my letter to the parties dated 16 March 2016.

4.  I confirm that KLG’s request was in accordance with this court’s intentions.  Under the slip rule, I clarify and correct the order in paragraph 46 of the Decision to state that the originating summons is to be dismissed as regards D2. 

5.  There should be an order for judgment to be entered under the originating summons against D1 for the billed amount without the need for taxation.