- 13 - A A B “defendant ( 被 告 人) includes any person served with any writ of summons or process, or served with notice of, or entitled to attend, any proceedings; C … D party (一方、方) includes every person served with notice of or attending any proceeding, although not named on the record;” E F G 36. To avoid conflation, it must be borne in mind Ms Chow’s unequivocal stance that she is not a Defendant. The letter of OTC dated B C D E F G 29 June 2023 and Ms Chow’s Grounds of Opposition leave no scope for H I argument (see paras 15 to 17 above). Put another way, she does not fall within the description of Defendants. Parties who are not named by the H I SJ may be joined in this action by invoking the rules on joinder of parties. J K J 37. Does the Service Order assist Ms Chow in this application? K One must be clear on the scope of the Service Order. On careful reading L M of it, in particular para 1 thereof, the substituted service process would only apply to Defendants. In other words, people like Ms Chow, who do not L M fall within the description of Defendants, cannot claim to have been served N O P Q R S under the Service Order. With respect, this may undermine Ms Chow’s application, save possibly for her reliance on service which took place on 23 June 2023. 38. If I am wrong, it appears to this Court that the definition provisions must be read with common sense bearing in mind the parenthesis. It cannot conceivably be right that, in the circumstances of this case where the identities of the Defendants were unknown and the N O P Q R S T T U U V V