[2020] 5 HKLRD 483

Airport Authority
and
Persons Unlawfully etc Interfering with Hong Kong
International Airport
————
[2020] HKCFI 2743
(Court of First Instance)
(High Court Action No 1471 of 2019)
————

Coleman J in Chambers
15, 29 October 2020

Civil procedure — statement of claim and other documents — service —

substituted service — unnamed defendants identified by description — use
of QR code appropriate, proportionate and economical in circumstances
民事訴訟程序 — 申索陳述書及其他文件 — 送達 — 替代送達 — 未命名
的被告人通過描述來辨認 — 在這情況下使用二維碼屬適當，相稱及合
符經濟
In light of protests at the Hong Kong International Airport (the
Airport), P, the Airport Authority, obtained an ex parte interim
injunction against Ds, persons unlawfully and wilfully obstructing
and interfering with the proper use of the Airport, under which
substituted service was to be effected, inter alia, by publishing the
order and the writ in one English and one Chinese newspaper in
Hong Kong for three days. The injunction was later continued and
varied. Under that continuation order, substituted service was
granted on the same basis albeit that the newspaper publication was
for only one day. As a result, P incurred more than $2.6 million on
newspaper publication. P later applied for substituted service of the
Statement of Claim and any subsequent documents in the action
(the Documents) by: (a) posting a copy of the Documents on the
Airport’s website; (b) fixing a copy of the Documents at entrances
to and within the landside areas of the Airport Terminal 1 building;
and (c) exhibiting at conspicuous places in the Airport a notice
containing a QR code linked to the Documents on P’s website (the
Proposed Method). Whilst satisfied that the Proposed Method should
be sufficient for the subsequent documents, Master Kot made an
order (the Kot Order) requiring the Statement of Claim and the
Kot Order to be advertised in one English newspaper and one

483 2020/12/16—17:7
484 HONG KONG LAW REPORTS & DIGEST [2020] 5 HKLRD 483

Chinese newspaper for one day, and to be posted in full across the
Airport island. P appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal and making an order in terms of the

Proposed Method, that:
(1) In recent cases involving unnamed defendants identified by
description, the court had been satisfied that service of
documents need not be by way of advertisement in
newspapers, but could be by way of posting the documents
at conspicuous places on the subject premises and on websites.
Effecting service through the use of modern technology may
be accepted by the court as giving effect to the underlying
objectives under O.1A r.1(a) and (c) of the Rules of the High
Court (Cap.4A, Sub.Leg.), as well as the mandate for the
court actively to manage cases. The use of a QR code on
publicly available or posted documents, linking the user of
the QR code to the court documents on a website, was
something which the court could consider and encourage as
an effective and proportionate way of likely bringing the
documents to the attention of the relevant parties. It would
however be necessary to ensure the sufficiently prominent
display of a QR code with clear instructions for its use. This
method may be particularly suited to cases where there were
large numbers of defendants or potential defendants, or where
there was a significant volume of documentary material to be
served (Secretary for Justice v Persons Unlawfully and Wilfully
Conducting Etc [2019] 5 HKLRD 465, Hwang Joon Sang v
Golden Electronics Inc [2020] 5 HKC 72 applied). (See
paras.15–16, 18.)
(2) The use of the QR code in this case was appropriate,
proportionate and economical. Given the prominent use of
social media and other modern modes of communication for
gaining news and information, publishing in newspapers was
duplicative and unnecessary. Any incremental benefit in
effecting service by newspaper publication and physically across
the entire Airport island seemed to be wholly disproportionate
to the substantial time, labour, and cost involved. (See
paras.23–25, 27.)
(3) The Proposed Method was entirely apt and sufficient for
service of the Documents. Once it was accepted that the
Proposed Method was sufficient to bring the other documents
to the attention of defendants and would-be defendants, there
was no rational basis for requiring a different approach to
service of the Statement of Claim. (See paras.28–29.)

483 2020/12/16—17:7
 Airport Authority v Persons Unlawfully etc Interfering with
[2020] 5 HKLRD 483 Hong Kong International Airport 485

Appeal
This was the plaintiff ’s appeal against the order of Master Kot dated
31 July 2020 relating to the substituted service of court documents.
Hogan Lovells, solicitors for the plaintiff.

Legislation mentioned in the judgment

Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A, Sub.Leg.) O.1A, 1A rr.1(a), (c),
2, 4(2)(k), O.1B r.1(1), O.10 r.1, O.65 r.5(1)(d)

Cases cited in the judgment

Hwang Joon Sang v Golden Electronics Inc [2020] 5 HKC 72,
[2020] HKCFI 1084
Secretary for Justice v Persons Unlawfully and Wilfully Conducting
Etc (2007/2019) [2019] 5 HKLRD 465, [2019] HKCFI 2777
DECISION

Coleman J

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
be 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

483 2020/12/16—17:7
486 HONG KONG LAW REPORTS & DIGEST [2020] 5 HKLRD 483

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 of 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

483 2020/12/16—17:7
 Airport Authority v Persons Unlawfully etc Interfering with
Hong Kong International Airport
[2020] 5 HKLRD 483 Coleman J 487

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. Order 65 r.5(1)(d) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A,
Sub.Leg.) (RHC) provides that service of any document not required
to be served personally or by one of the modes prescribed in O.10
r.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 are
said to be made subject to the Court’s jurisdiction and to the order
could reasonably be expected to learn of the proceedings.
15. Of course, a common means of effecting substituted service
is by way of advertisement placed in newspapers. However, in a
number of recent cases involving unnamed defendants identified by
description, including my decision cited above, the Court has been
satisfied that service of documents need not be by way of
advertisement in newspapers, but could be by way of posting the
documents at conspicuous places on the subject premises (where
relevant) and on websites.
16. Further, effecting service through the use of modern
technology may also be accepted by the Court, in an appropriate
case, as giving effect to the underlying objectives to be found in
O.1A r.1(a) and (c), as well as the mandate for the Court actively
to manage cases. Under O.1A r.4(2)(k), active case management
includes making use of technology.
17. In Hwang Joon Sang v Golden Electronics Inc [2020] 5
HKC 72, I granted an order permitting ordinary service of
documents by access to a data room, effected by sending the relevant
party to be served a link and access code to the data room. I held
(at [30]–[32]) that the underlying objectives included (1) increasing
the cost-effectiveness of procedures to be followed in relation to

483 2020/12/16—17:7
488 HONG KONG LAW REPORTS & DIGEST [2020] 5 HKLRD 483

civil proceedings; (2) to promote a sense of reasonable proportion

and procedural economy in the conduct of proceedings; and (3) to
ensure fairness between the parties. I also pointed out that by O.1A
r.2, the Court is mandated to give effect to the underlying objectives
of the rules when it exercises any of its powers, or when it interprets
any of the rules. Further, under O.1B r.1(1), the Court may by
order take any step or make any other order for the purpose of
managing the case and furthering the underlying objectives set out
in O.1A. That power is in addition to any powers given to the Court
by any other rule or practice direction or by any other enactment
or any powers it may otherwise have.
18. It seems to me that, in an appropriate case, the use of a
QR code on publicly available or posted documents, linking the
user of the QR code to the court documents on a website, is
something which the Court can consider and encourage as an
effective and proportionate way of achieving the aim of likely
bringing the documents to the attention of those to whom attention
is to be drawn. It will, of course, be necessary to ensure the
sufficiently prominent display of a QR code with clear instructions
for its use to access the relevant documents. This method may seem
particularly suited to cases where there are large numbers of
defendants or potential defendants, or where there is a significant
volume of documentary material to be served.
19. Nevertheless, I also held (at [37]) that it remains important
and necessary to ensure that the proposed method of service on
each occasion is or remains authorised by the Court, and that any
first occasion of service on any defendant (or third party) should be
effected by another Court approved method, before an alternative
is mooted.

D. This case
20. The Barton Affirmation identifies that the cost of advertising
the writ and ex parte interim injunction order in newspapers for
three consecutive days was over HK$2.2 million, and the cost of
advertising the continuation order in newspapers for one day was
over $430,000. Therefore, the plaintiff has incurred more than $2.6
million so far to advertise the writ and the orders made by the court
in these proceedings.
21. The Barton Affirmation also identifies that the previous
service effected by posting the writ and previous orders at
conspicuous locations (102 of them) on the Airport island required
a team of 16 people working more than 12 hours each day for 4
days to complete. This was, of course, in circumstances where most
of the activities that were disruptive to the Airport’s operations
occurred at entrances to and within the landside areas of the

483 2020/12/16—17:7
 Airport Authority v Persons Unlawfully etc Interfering with
Hong Kong International Airport
[2020] 5 HKLRD 483 Coleman J 489

Airport’s Terminal 1 building (rather than throughout the area of

the Airport island).
22. It can also be noted that these proceedings, and the two
occasions of execution of the interim injunction order, have been
widely reported in the media, and have attracted significant public
attention.
23. Looking forward, the plaintiff ’s solicitors submit that the
Master’s suggestion that publishing the Statement of Claim and the
Kot Order “should” reach a wider audience if published in
newspapers is likely misplaced, and in any event without evidential
basis. One of the distinguishing features of the recent social unrest
is the prominent use of social media and other modern modes of
communication, and the demonstrated technological knowledge
and awareness of persons involved. The plaintiff ’s solicitors submit
that it can reasonably be expected that the posting of the Documents
on the plaintiff ’s website and the other methods of proposed
substituted service would be sufficient to bring the Documents to
the attention of the defendants or would-be defendants. Indeed, it
is a fact that increasing numbers of the Hong Kong population gain
their news and other information using modern forms of social
media and online communication and publications, rather than
traditional newspapers.
24. On that basis, it is submitted, publishing in newspapers is
both duplicative and unnecessary. The same can be said of posting
the full Statement of Claim and the Kot Order at conspicuous places
all across the Airport island.
25. I agree. Any incremental benefit in effecting service by
newspaper publication and physically across the entire Airport island
seems to me to be wholly disproportionate to the substantial time,
labour, and cost (not to mention the environmental costs) which
that would entail.
26. I note that the plaintiff proposes that the Documents will
be posted in full at the entrances to and within the landside areas
of the Airport’s Terminal 1 building (where most of the disruptive
activities previously occurred). In addition, the Proposed Method
of Service includes notices — as opposed to the full documents —
to be posted at other conspicuous locations at the Airport. Those
notices will inform the public of these proceedings, and the
injunction orders and consequences of breach. Those notices will
also prominently display a QR code with instructions to access the
full Documents on the plaintiff ’s website, where the Documents
will be readily available in full in any event.
27. The use of the QR code is appropriate and proportionate.
It is a sensible use of readily available technology. Scanning a QR
code is usually performed in three simple steps, comprising (1)
turning on the camera of a smart phone; (2) aiming the camera lens

483 2020/12/16—17:7
490 HONG KONG LAW REPORTS & DIGEST [2020] 5 HKLRD 483

at the QR code; and (3) clicking the link that pops up on the smart
phone screen. No separate app is required. The mockup of the
notice exhibited to the Barton Affirmation seems to me to have
clear instructions on how to access the Documents using this
method. Once access to the Documents has been obtained in this
way, they can be read at the reader’s own convenience, at an
appropriate location of his or her choice. There is no need, for
example, to return to the same physical location to continue reading
or to re-read. The use of a QR code is also economical, thus
satisfying the underlying objectives of promoting economy and
proportionality of costs.
28. I have considered whether a different approach needs to
be taken as regards the Statement of Claim. In my view, it does
not. The nature of the plaintiff ’s claim is evident from the writ. The
widespread substituted service and publication, and media
re-publication, of the writ identifying the claim in these proceedings
has not led to any defendant acknowledging service and expressing
any desire to participate in the proceedings. Once it is accepted (as
I accept, and as it was also accepted by the Master) that the Proposed
Method of Service is sufficient to bring the other Documents to the
attention of defendants and would-be defendants, I see no rational
basis for requiring a different approach to service of the Statement
of Claim.
29. Though I think the Previous Method was entirely apt for
effecting service of the writ, the ex parte interim injunction order
and the continuation order, I also think that the Proposed Method
of Service is now entirely apt and sufficient for service of the
Statement of Claim and other Documents.

E. Result
30. In the circumstances, I allow the appeal and I make the
following order:

(1) The plaintiff to have leave to serve this Order, the Statement
of Claim, and all subsequent documents that require service
in this action, by way of substituted service by:

(a) posting a copy of the document or documents on the

website www.hongkongairport.com;
(b) fixing a copy of the document or documents securely
at conspicuous places at entrances to and within the
landside areas of the Hong Kong International Airport’s
Terminal 1 building; and
(c) exhibiting securely at conspicuous places in the Hong
Kong International Airport a notice containing a QR

483 2020/12/16—17:7
 Airport Authority v Persons Unlawfully etc Interfering with
Hong Kong International Airport
[2020] 5 HKLRD 483 Coleman J 491

code which would link to the document or documents

posted on the p l a i n t i f f ’s we b s i t e
www.hongkongairport.com.

(2) Service in the manner provided for in paragraph 1 above shall

be deemed to be good and sufficient service on the defendants.

31. I also make an order that service of the Notice of Appeal

be dispensed with.
32. As to the costs of this Appeal, and the application before
the Master, I first note that the Kot Order makes no provision for
costs. The plaintiff ’s solicitors seek an order that the costs of and
incidental to the appeal be in the cause, which is the relief also
sought in the Notice of Appeal. However, in the particular
circumstances of these proceedings, I am not sure I see any point
in making the costs of this application and the Appeal costs in the
cause. Therefore, in the exercise of my discretion on costs, I make
no order as to the costs of this Appeal and the application before
the Master.

Reported by Yuki Kong

483 2020/12/16—17:7