Hua Sung Enterprises Ltd v Patel, Satish Mohan T/a (Creative Style Enterprzse)

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date22 November 2005
Judgement NumberDCCJ1249/2004
DCCJ001249/2004 HUA SUNG ENTERPRISES LTD v. PATEL, SATISH MOHAN t/a (CREATIVE STYLE ENTERPRZSE)

DCCJ1249/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1249 OF 2004

______________________

HUA SUNG ENTERPRISES LIMITED Plaintiff
and
PATEL, SATISH MOHAN T/A Defendant
(CREATIVE STYLE ENTERPRZSE)

______________________

Coram : H H Judge H C Wong in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 22 November 2005

Date of Delivery of Decision : 22 November 2005

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1. The plaintiff applies for leave to renew the re-amended writ of summons last amended on 20 April 2004 under Order 6, Rule 8 of the Rules of the District Court and to issue a concurrent writ of summons for service out of jurisdiction under Order 11, Rule 1(d)(i) and (iii) of the Rules of the District Court. The application was refused by Registrar Yu on 24 October 2005. The plaintiff appeals to this court to set aside Registrar Yu’s refusal to grant leave.

2. Application to Registrar Yu to renew the writ was made after the writ has expired and after the expiry of the relevant period of limitation. The claim is a goods sold and delivered claim. The writ was issued on 5 March 2004 by the plaintiff in person. It was served on the defendant’s formal address in Hong Kong. It could not be served.

3. According to the plaintiff’s affidavit, the plaintiff had engaged recovering agents in the UK in 1999 to look for and collect the debt from the defendant after the defendant left Hong Kong in or about March 1999. The recovering agent located the defendant at an address in Surrey in the UK and had a number of conversations with the defendant in January 2000 and April 2000. The recovering agent reported to the plaintiff that the defendant intended to pay the debt but he had no money and he may be receiving money soon because he had money outstanding from West Africa. All these of course are hearsay from the report by the recovering agent to the plaintiff. No further action seems to have been taken by the plaintiff but to wait for further news from the recovering agent and there was over three and a half years of inaction.

4. Then in November 2003, the plaintiff wrote to the High Commission of India and received words from the High Commissioner of India a copy of a letter from the defendant to the Commissioner concerning the plaintiff’s claim in which the defendant claimed and denied he owed the plaintiff any debt.

5. In March 2004, the writ in these proceedings was issued. Attempts were made by the court bailiff to serve on the defendant on his Hong Kong address as set out in the writ. No effective service resulted. Then the plaintiff applied to the court to amend the writ to change the defendant’s address to the UK address in April 2004. He was advised by Master Ko, to serve the writ out of jurisdiction under Order 11, Rule 4. But in May 2004, the plaintiff applied to re-amend the writ to change the defendant’s address back to the Hong Kong address. Leave was granted on 14 May 2004 to amend the address. In June 2004, the plaintiff applied for extension of time to re-amend the writ. Leave was granted in June 2004. As service was on the formal Hong Kong address...

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