- 18 - A B A B Service on 23 June 2023 C C 51. D E The facts very much speak for themselves (see in particular paras 11 to 15 above). The service of documents by the DOJ on OTC on 23 June 2023 was plainly premised on the belief that Ms Chow was a Defendant, and to comply with [2] of the Service Order. F G H no doubt induced by the Notice of Intention to Defend served by OTC on the DOJ on 21 June 2023. However, the DOJ acted swiftly in seeking clarification from OTC about Ms Chow’s status. After the clarification and in due course, Ms Chow’s locus was challenged by the DOJ. L M 23 June 2023. She knew that she was (and is) not a Defendant. I fail to Chow (see Chitty on Contracts, 34th edn, vol 1, [6-116] to [6-119]). The proposition was put forward as a bare assertion without elaboration. For these reasons, this Court is unable to accept that Ms Chow has been a party to this action since the service of the papers on her on 23 June 2023. It is unnecessary to deal with the SJ’s submissions on abuse of process. Q R H J K L M N O P Q Disposition 54. S G I am unable see any basis for estoppel by convention as contended on behalf of Ms 53. P The issue before the Court is one of substance. to see how Ms Chow can legitimately take advantage of the service on N O F I 52. K E The belief was I J D R For the above reasons, Ms Chow’s Summons is dismissed with costs. I see no reason why costs should not follow the event, but I S T T U U V V