CHAN HOP CHUEN v. RICHDAY GROUP LTD

DCCJ 2773/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2773 OF 2013

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1. I have to deal with the defendant’s application relating to the setting aside of the notice to act in person of the plaintiff dated 2 October 2013. This summons was taken out under Order 12, Rules 3 and 4, and Order 67, Rules 4 and 7 of the Rules of the District Court.

2. The defendant’s solicitor referred me to the case of Dianor International Limited v Aya Rambul Sabam Maniam HCA 806/2008.  Paragraph 4 of that case directly applies here.  That paragraph reads:

“The intention of Order 12, Rules 3 and 4 is clear. It is to ensure that a defendant contesting a claim here should provide an address within this jurisdiction for service of documents on him. Although Order 67, Rule 4, does not expressly say that the address for service has to be within this jurisdiction, I have no doubt that it has to be within this jurisdiction otherwise Order 12, Rules 3 and 4, can easily be defeated by a defendant who acknowledges service by solicitors and then files a notice of intention to act in person but not giving a local address for service. I do not think Order 12, Rules 3 and 4, can be defeated that way.”

3. I also refer to the judgment of Chu J in Crestknit Limited v Coach George Rocco Rinke and Another HCA 1475/2006 15 June 2007 at paragraph 18, where the learned judge referred to the combined effect of Order 12, Rule 3(ii)(a) and Order 67, Rule 4.

4. In this case, the plaintiff instituted the present proceedings on the 30th day of July 2013.  At that time the plaintiff was represented by Lam & Lai, Solicitors.

5. The defendant filed on 26 September 2013 a defence and counterclaim.  On 3 October 2013 the plaintiff filed a notice to act in person.  In the notice to act in person it is stated as follows:

“Take notice that I, Chan Hop-chuen, the abovenamed plaintiff, intend to act in person in this action in place of Messrs Lam & Lai, Solicitors, and my address for service is 中國深圳寶安寶城82區自由六隊3行702室.”

There is a signature, Chan Hop-chuen, signed in Chinese.  Underneath that is “Plaintiff in person”.  From this notice it is clear that the plaintiff’s address is outside Hong Kong.  So it is outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong.

6. The judgment of Dianor International Limited applies in this case.  So I make an order in terms of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this summons.

(Submission on costs)

7. I order that the plaintiff do pay the costs of the summons application to the defendant to be taxed if not agreed.

8. 本庭現時要裁決的是被告人於2013年11月1日提出的傳票。

9. 原告人於2013年7月30日提出本案的申索。2013年9月26日，被告人向本庭存檔他的答辯以及反申索。在反申索書內，被告人提出的濟助共有七項，原告人作為反申索的被告人，沒有提出任何對該反申索的抗辯。於2013年10月2日，原告人作出一份notice to act in person，該notice to act in person是於2013年10月3日向法庭存檔的。於2013年10月21日，被告人的代表律師向法庭存檔一份notice of intention to enter judgment pursuant to O.19 r.8A of the Rules of the District Court, Cap.336H。該notice of intention to enter judgment是向原告人的律師Lam & Lai送達的。

10.  根據法庭的檔案，原告人作為該反申索的答辯人，沒有向法庭存檔任何有關針對該反申索書的抗辯，因此本庭裁決，被告人向法庭存檔的傳票，有關於原告人沒有針對被告人的反申索作出抗辯的傳票，本庭裁決被告人的申請得直。本庭裁定，傳票內的第一、第二、第三以及第四項的申索得直，本庭採納傳票內第一至第四項的要求，作為本庭的命令。