1. The Deceased died intestate in 1985. In 2012, Li Cheong (“the Plaintiff”) commenced a probate action (“the 2012 Action”) against Lee Kwai Tai also known as Li Kwai Tai (“LKT”). The Plaintiff claimed that the Deceased died leaving no wife, no issue and no surviving parents and that he was a nephew of the Deceased. LKT counterclaimed to be the only daughter of the Deceased and the only beneficiary of the estate of the Deceased. LKT had since passed away and her estate was represented by her adopted daughter Chan Tsui Shan. 2. In September 2015, Li Soo Tan also known as Lee Soo Tan Doreen (“DL”) filed a caveat and claimed to be the only daughter of the Deceased and the only beneficiary of the estate of the Deceased. In March 2016, LKT’s solicitors served a notice of action on DL’s solicitors under Order 15, rule 13A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A). DL did not acknowledge service in the 2012 Action, but commenced another probate action against the Plaintiff and LKT in May 2016 (“the 2016 Action”). At the trial of the 2012 Action in June 2016, the Plaintiff was absent. Deputy High Court Judge Yee (“the Deputy Judge”) gave judgment for LKT on her counterclaim (“the Judgment in the 2012 Action”), which was binding on DL by reason of Order 15, rule 13A(4). 3. In April 2017, DL applied for extension of time to acknowledge service and to apply to set aside the Judgment in the 2012 Action. The Deputy Judge ruled that the notice of action was validly served on DL’s solicitors, and there was inexcusable delay on DL’s part in applying to set aside the Judgment. However, the Deputy Judge exercised his discretion and granted DL’s application to extend time on the grounds that during the trial, he had, in ignorance of the effect of Order 15, rule 13A(4), expressly indicated that the Judgment in the 2012 Action was not intended to be binding on DL, that documentary evidence showed that DL had a bona fide claim, and that little delay would be caused to LKT because she would have to deal with the 2016 Action in any event. 4. The Court of Appeal held that the Deputy Judge erred in his exercise of discretion. First, the Deputy Judge’s intention that the Judgment in the 2012 Action was not to be binding on DL was irrelevant and was legally incorrect. Second, the Deputy Judge overlooked the true extent of DL’s default and the prejudice to LKT. DL not only failed to acknowledge service, but failed to apply to join as a party to the 2012 Action even though she was well aware of its existence since September 2015. The Court of Appeal exercised the discretion afresh and dismissed DL’s application. 5. DL appealed to this Court. She argued that there were no grounds for the Court of Appeal to set aside the Deputy Judge’s exercise of discretion. 6. Mr Justice Fok PJ, with whom Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Cheung PJ and Mr Justice Spigelman NPJ agreed, held that the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Deputy Judge’s exercise of discretion was vitiated by error. In addition, the Deputy Judge erred in stating that little further delay would be caused to LKT, since the 2016 Action stood to be disposed of summarily as an abuse of process. 7. Mr Justice Tang NPJ held that the Deputy Judge was entitled to take into account his intention when giving the Judgment in the 2012 Action, and to decide that DL’s delay and the prejudice to LKT were counter-balanced by the factor that DL had a bona fide claim. However, the Deputy Judge erred in considering that little further delay would be caused to LKT. The Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to set aside his exercise of discretion. DISPOSITION: 8. Accordingly, for these reasons, this Court unanimously dismissed DL’s appeal.