CIVIL ACTION HBC 0362 OF 1998S
BETWEEN:
SAULEKALEKA ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Plaintiff
and
DER HSING KANG
First Defendant
and
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant
Savou for the Plaintiff
P. Howard for the 1st Defendant
No appearance by the 2nd Defendant
This is an application brought under the provisions of Order 19 r 9 to set aside a Judgment entered in default of defence on 24 May
1999. This Decision should be read together with my Judgment of that date.
p class=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> affidavits have been filed in support of the application:
i) &nbs; &nbbsp; p;&nsp; &nbp; &&nbp;;&nbpp; &nnsp; Dpan>Defendant, 2 1uly 1999;
ii) p;&nbbsp;&nsp; &nsp; p; &nnsp;&&nsp; &nbp; loisaVuadreu, in suin supportuly 1span>
iii)>iii) &nnbsp; &nnbsp; &nbp; &nbp; Apanalome Vuadreu, 25 Oc25 October 1999.
nbsp;
The Plaintiff filed two affidavits, the first on 9 August 1999 and the second on 10 November 1999.
Both Counsel filed helpful and comprehensive submissions for which I am grateful.
The first Defendant, who lives in Taiwan, claims that he was not served with the writ and with any further papers in the action and
that accordingly the Judgment entered against him was irregular and should be set aside.
The Plaintiff,ting to a registered delivery of the papers in Taiwan suggests that the first Defendant wast was in fact properly served
and that therefore there is no merit in the application.
p class=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> In the circumstances of this case which centre on allegations ofly fraudulent activity I th I think that I should set the Judgment
aside as there is a slight chance that the documents, though served at the first Defendant’s former address did not in fact reach
him personally. On the other hand the first Defendant’s inactivity in regard to the property which he says he has owned in Fiji since
1995 is odd to say the least and he is undoubtedly a litigant resident overseas. I therefore set the Judgment aside but on the condition
that the first Defendant provide security for the Plaintiffs costs. The trial of this action may well be lengthy. Initially I was
of the view that the first Defendant should provide security in the amount of $10,000 but on reconsideration I fix the amount at
$5,000. I also order the Registrar of Titles, the second Defendant who has hitherto not appeared in these proceedings, not to re-register
the land until the final outcome of this action or further order. The payment-in is to be by midday 22 March 00.
M.D. Scott
Judge
10 February 00 1"> HBC0362.98S
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2000/24.html
