Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Airport Authority v Persons Unlawfully And Wilfully Obstructing Or Interfering With The Proper Use Of The Hong Kong International Airport

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date29 October 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 2743
Year2020
Judgement NumberHCA1471/2019
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCA1471A/2019 AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILFULLY OBSTRUCTING OR INTERFERING WITH THE PROPER USE OF THE HONG KONG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

HCA 1471/2019

[2020] HKCFI 2743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1471 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN
AIRPORT AUTHORITY Plaintiff

and
PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILFULLY Defendants
OBSTRUCTING OR INTERFERING WITH THE
PROPER USE OF THE HONG KONG
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

________________________

Before: Hon Coleman J in Chambers (Open to Public)
Date of Written Submissions: 15 October 2020
Date of Decision: 29 October 2020

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

A. Introduction

1. By Notice of Appeal dated 28 August 2020, the plaintiff appeals from the Order of Master Kot dated 31 July 2020 (“Kot Order”) relating to the substituted service of Court documents.

2. I have previously directed that the Appeal be dealt with by way of paper disposal. Solicitors for the plaintiff have filed written submissions dated 15 October 2020, together with a list of authorities, accompanied by an Appeal Bundle. The original application for substituted service, and this Appeal, are made ex parte. Therefore, I accept that the Notice of Appeal itself need not served. Its import is in any event fully apparent from this Decision.

3. The Appeal arises against the following background. The plaintiff is the operator of the Hong Kong International Airport (“Airport”). On 13 August 2019, the plaintiff was granted an ex parte interim injunction against the defendants, concerning the obstruction and interference caused by the protests at the Airport in August 2019. Under that order, substituted service was to be effected by the plaintiff by placing copies of the order and the writ (1) posted securely at conspicuous places in the Airport, (2) published on the Airport’s website www.hongkongairport.com, and (3) published in one English and one Chinese newspaper in Hong Kong for three consecutive days.

4. On 23 August 2019, the ex parte interim injunction order was varied and continued. Under that continuation order, an order for substituted service was granted on the same basis, albeit that the newspaper publication was for only one day (“Previous Method”).

5. As well as the steps taken for service of the various documents, the proceedings received considerable publicity in various media. However, no person has come forward to file any acknowledgement of service, and there are therefore no addresses at which service on any defendant could be affected.

6. The Kot Order was made on the plaintiff’s application for leave to serve the Statement of Claim and any subsequent documents in the action (“Documents”) by way of substituted service. That application was supported by the affirmation of Kim Barton (“Barton Affirmation”) and a letter from the plaintiff both dated 9 July 2020.

7. The plaintiff’s application and the Barton Affirmation proposed substituted service (“Proposed Method of Service”) by (1) posting a copy of the Documents on the Airport’s website, (2) fixing a copy the Documents securely at conspicuous places at entrances to and within the landside areas of the Airport Terminal 1 building, and (3) exhibiting securely in conspicuous places in the Airport a notice containing a QR code which would link to the Documents posted on the plaintiff’s website.

8. The substituted service directed under the Kot Order differs from the Proposed Method of Service in particular by requiring (1) the Statement of Claim (17 pages) and the Kot Order (2 pages) to be advertised in one English newspaper and one Chinese newspaper for one day, and (2) the Statement of Claim and the Kot Order to be posted in full across the Airport island.

9. The Appeal is against those parts of the Kot Order. The basis of the Appeal is that the cost of publishing the Documents (including the Statement of Claim and the Kot Order itself) in newspapers, and the time and effort to paste up the Documents in full across the Airport island, are disproportionate when compared to effectiveness, and when the Proposed Method of Service would be no less effective.

B. The Kot Order

10. When making the Kot Order, the Master differentiated between service of the Statement of Claim and subsequent documents. As a result, the Kot Order provides for differing methods of substituted service relating to the Statement of Claim on the one hand, and to any subsequent documents on the other.

11. The Master’s comments included that the Statement of Claim is an important document that informs the defendants of the details of the plaintiff’s claim. That is obviously correct. The Master went on to state that, even though there was extensive media coverage of the injunction application and that there is prevalent internet access in Hong Kong, service of the Statement of Claim “should be in a way sufficient to bring to the attention of those targeted as Defendants and publication on the newspaper should be a means that is more likely to reach the public as a whole even for 1 day”. The Master commented that that consideration outweighed the costs and efforts to be involved.

12. As to the subsequent documents that require service, the Master commented that a different consideration is justified, and the means of substituted service proposed by the plaintiff “should be sufficient”.

C. Applicable Law

13. RHC Order 65 rule 5(1)(d) provides that service of any document not required to be served personally or by one of the modes prescribed in Order 10 rule 1 may be affected by such other manner as the Court may direct.

14. The principal aim of effecting substituted service is for the chosen method of substituted service to be likely to bring the relevant court documents to the notice of the persons made subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. As I held in Secretary for Justice v Persons Unlawfully and Wilfully Conducting Etc [2019] 5 HKLRD 465, where an application is brought against unnamed defendants in the manner described, it is important that the persons who...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT