Irregular Default Judgments: Should Hong Kong Discard the 'as of Right' Rule?

Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 30, P. 245, 2000

Posted: 18 Aug 2006

See all articles by Camille Cameron

Camille Cameron

University of Melbourne - Law School

Abstract

Procedural rules reflect different, often competing, interests. The rules governing applications to set aside default judgments are an example of this tension. The traditional approach to setting aside 'irregular' default judgments, the 'as of right' rule, entitles defendants to have the judgment set aside, without considering the merits. The rule ensures that litigants comply with the relevant procedural rules, and that defendants have notice of proceedings and are protected from the injustice that might result if judgment is unfairly entered against them. However, Hong Kong courts have begun to reconsider the as of right rule, as a result of the 1998 English Court of Appeal decision in Faircharm v Citibank. That decision departed from the traditional approach in that the Court of Appeal considered the merits of the defence, decided there was no defence and refused to set aside the 'irregular' judgment. In doing so the court introduced a new consideration, that cases should be dealt with expeditiously and proportionately. Hong Kong courts must now consider whether to retain the as of right rule, or whether the Faircharm approach would better serve Hong Kong's interests.

Suggested Citation

Cameron, Camille, Irregular Default Judgments: Should Hong Kong Discard the 'as of Right' Rule?. Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 30, P. 245, 2000, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=925205

Camille Cameron (Contact Author)

University of Melbourne - Law School ( email )

University Square
185 Pelham Street, Carlton
Victoria, Victoria 3010
Australia

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
830
PlumX Metrics