Resisting the setting aside of a default judgment presents considerable challenges.

When a default judgment has been granted and a defendant subsequently applies to set it aside, courts typically adopt a lenient approach, giving defendants the benefit of the doubt regarding their prospects of success at trial, often subject to conditions such as paying security into court.

However, in the recent case of DCCJ 2561/2023, a defamation matter handled by our Romain Pierre Levaire, representing the Plaintiff (instructed by Mr Mike Nanwani), successfully resisted the setting aside application. The court dismissed it at the first hearing with costs, demonstrating the strength of the plaintiff's position.

This means the plaintiff's case can proceed undisturbed, with the assessment of damages continuing as scheduled.

This case serves as an important reminder: words, once published, cannot be recalled. Defamatory statements can have serious legal and financial consequences. As this decision reinforces, defending such claims requires a cogent, admissible defence, and mere allegations or unsubstantiated assertions will not suffice. Those who publish defamatory content should be aware that the consequences can be substantial and long-lasting.

Romain Pierre Levaire accepts instructions across a wide range of legal fields including defamation and other contentious civil and criminal matters. For more information about him, please visit here.

---

抗辯撤銷缺席判決一向困難重重。

在缺席判決已獲頒下，而被告其後申請撤銷該判決的情況下，法院一般會採取較為寬鬆的取態，傾向在評估被告於正式審訊中的勝訴機會時給予其合理的疑點利益，並往往會附加條件，例如要求被告向法院繳付保證金。

然而，在近期的 DCCJ 2561/2023 一案（誹謗訴訟）中，本所的羅盟大律師代表原告（由 Mike Nanwani 先生指示），成功抗辯被告提出的撤銷缺席判決申請。法院於首次聆訊即駁回該申請，並判令被告支付訟費，充分反映原告一方立場之穩固。

此裁決意味原告的案件可在不受干擾的情況下繼續進行，而損害賠償的評定亦將按原定時間表推進。

本案再次清楚提醒，所有言論一經發表，便無法收回。誹謗性言論可引致嚴重的法律及財務後果。正如本判決所重申，抗辯誹謗申索必須建基於具說服力及可接納的證據，單憑指控或缺乏實質支持的陳述，並不足以構成有效抗辯。任何發表誹謗內容的人士，均應清楚知悉其後果可能既重大，亦深遠。

羅盟大律師接受多個不同法律範疇的委託，包括誹謗及其他具爭議性的民事及刑事案件。如欲了解更多有關他的資料，請瀏覽此處。