HONG KONG RISHENG ELECTRONIC LTD v. NG NG YEUNG

DCCJ1478/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1478 OF 2009

______________________________

BETWEEN

________________________________

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

1.  This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the decision made by Master Mak on 13 November 2009 in favour of the 1st defendant. On that day Master Mak made a number of orders, one of which was to set aside the judgment entered on 18 June 2009 against the 1st defendant.

2.  In the court file there is an affirmation of Miss Wong Chung-fong, a clerk of the plaintiff’s solicitors, dated 25 March 2009 to the effect that she served a sealed copy of the writ of summons of this case together with a covering letter to the 1st defendant by inserting these documents in a sealed envelope, properly addressed to the 1st defendant by inserting these documents into a mailbox of the 1st defendant’s address.

3.  Judgment was entered against the 1st defendant on 18 June 2009 on the plaintiff’s claim in this case. Subsequently, the 1st defendant applied to set aside the judgment and the judgment was set side as said above.

4.  According to the statement of travel records issued by the Immigration Department on 23 September 2009, the 1st defendant departed from Hong Kong on 9 December 2008 and then he arrived back in Hong Kong on 26 August 2009. So between these two dates, according to the travel records, he was not in Hong Kong.

5.  The plaintiff’s solicitor, Mr Chung, said that the travelling in and out of Hong Kong can be made use by using someone’s Hong Kong identity card as well as passport. But the travel record does not show the kind of documents used by the 1st defendant. The most important thing is: is it a full record of his travels in and out of Hong Kong? It must be, because it says that “according to the travel record, this is to certify that the following ...77...76, departure records are kept by this department in respect of the 1st defendant, namely Mr Ng Ng-yeung of - date of birth - during the period from 1Jan 2008 to 22 September 2009.” It sets out all the details.

6.  There is no evidence that this is not a complete record of his travels in and out of Hong Kong. It does not matter whether the 1st defendant used either his Hong Kong ID card or his passport to go in and go out of Hong Kong. What is important is: is this travel record a correct record? There is nothing to show that this is not.

7.  Now, according to the travel record, the defendant, 1st defendant went out of Hong Kong on 9 December 2008 and returned to Hong Kong on 26 August 2009. Now, during this period he was not in Hong Kong but the writ of statement was served on 25 March 2009. So obviously he did not receive the writ of statement and respond to it. So I cannot see how the master made a mistake in his decision. I therefore do not allow the appeal.

(Discussions re costs)

8.  Order item (7) made by Master Mak on 13 November 2009 be set aside. There be no order as to costs in relation to the first and second summonses. The plaintiff do pay costs to the 1st defendant in respect of the hearing of the first and second summonses on 13 November 2009 and the costs of today’s hearing, to be taxed, if not agreed.