- 17 - A B C A 47. A host of other cases had been cited to this Court by Ms Li. I do not believe that any of those cases supports the proposition that a B C person who is, on his own case, not a defendant and has failed to take out D E F G H I any joinder application should be allowed to take part in the proceedings because he has been served with notice of the same under an unusually wide substituted service order made under exceptional circumstances. 48. I agree with Mr Yu that those cases are distinguishable and do not assist Ms Chow4. 49. D E F G H This Court has also been referred to a number of authorities I in Ms Li’s reply submissions in support of Ms Chow’s case on how the J K L M phrase “unless the context otherwise requires” should be understood, namely, Savoy Hotel Co v London CC [1900] 1 QB 665, 669; Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99, 105-106; Lisbeth Enterprises Ltd v Luke (2006) 9 HKCFAR 131, [15]; and M v SS for Work and Pension [2006] QB 380, [84]. N 50. O P Q R In respect of the “workability” test adopted in Lisbeth ([20]), in my view it would not be workable to apply the s.2 definition of “party” to someone who is not. To do so would mean that proceedings in which A is sued but wrongly served on B would render B a party to the same. S K L M With great respect, these authorities concerned different circumstances and are distinguishable. J N O P Q R S 4 See SJ’s Reply Submissions, [30]-[38]. T T U U V V