FAITH LUCK CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. TIN YAU NUNG

HCMP 603/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 603 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The service of the Originating Summons was not valid under Order 10, rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court. The plaintiffs’ solicitors only attempted to serve the Originating Summons by leaving the document at the subject land, which was not any of the three prescribed methods under Order 10, rule 1. Therefore, the Court could not proceed to deal with the Originating Summons in any way today.

2.  The plaintiffs’ solicitors should not have issued the Notice of Appointment of the hearing today at all before the service has been properly made.  Given that the hearing today is completely wasted, and also that the defectiveness of the service of the Originating Summons has been so plain and apparent, in the absence of any sufficient explanation from Mr Nicholas Oh, counsel for the plaintiffs, I am mined to order that the costs of the plaintiffs’ solicitors incurred for the hearing today, save only those costs of counsel for the plaintiffs incurred in preparation for submission on the substantive merits of the plaintiffs’ application for order for sale, shall not be charged by the plaintiffs’ solicitors towards the plaintiffs.

3.  As between the plaintiffs and the defendant, I shall make no order as to costs in respect of the hearing today.

4.  Having dealt with the question of costs, I shall adjourn the directions hearing today to another date with 30 minutes reserved, but such hearing shall only be fixed after the Originating Summons has been duly served.