Jinxin Inc v Aser Media PTE Limited & Ors

Jinxin Inc v Aser Media PTE Limited & Ors

The application for a split trial is dismissed because the issues proposed for separate trials are too interlocked, would require duplication of evidence, and would not provide a clear or substantial advantage over a single trial. The application to strike out references to foreign authority findings is allowed because the proceedings are not competition claims against addressees of those decisions, and the findings are inadmissible under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn.

Parties
Claimant: Jinxin Inc; First Defendant: Aser Media Pte Limited; Second Defendant: Media Partners and Silva, LLC; Third Defendant: Su Hyeon Cho; Fourth Defendant: Lara Vanjak; Fifth Defendant: Marco Auletta; Sixth Defendant: Riccardo Silva Holding Designated Activity Company; Seventh Defendant: Roberto Dalmiglio; Eighth Defendant: Fong Lee Yuh; Ninth Defendant: Riccardo Silva; Tenth Defendant: Andrea Radrizzani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud/deceit and Conspiracy / Ruling on Case Management Applications (split Trial and Strike Out)
Outcome
Split trial application dismissed; strike out application allowed
Legal Topics
Split Trial Applications, Admissibility of Foreign Judgments, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Conspiracy, Competition Claims, Striking Out Pleadings
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Competition Law Split Trial Applications Admissibility of Foreign Judgments Fraudulent Misrepresentation Conspiracy Competition Claims +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jinxin Inc

Claimant

Aser Media Pte Limited

First Defendant

Media Partners and Silva, LLC

Second Defendant

Su Hyeon Cho

Third Defendant

Lara Vanjak

Fourth Defendant

Marco Auletta

Fifth Defendant

Riccardo Silva Holding Designated Activity Company

Sixth Defendant

Roberto Dalmiglio

Seventh Defendant

Fong Lee Yuh

Eighth Defendant

Riccardo Silva

Ninth Defendant

Andrea Radrizzani

Tenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud/deceit and Conspiracy / Ruling on Case Management Applications (split Trial and Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order a split trial of issues in a complex deceit/conspiracy claim
  2. 2 Whether to strike out references to foreign court/competition authority findings from pleadings under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a split trial is dismissed because the issues proposed for separate trials are too interlocked, would require duplication of evidence, and would not provide a clear or substantial advantage over a single trial. The application to strike out references to foreign authority findings is allowed because the proceedings are not competition claims against addressees of those decisions, and the findings are inadmissible under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn.

Court Disposition

Split trial application dismissed; strike out application allowed

Orders

  • Application for split trial dismissed
  • References in Particulars of Claim to decisions of the Italian Anti-Trust Authority and Bellinzona Court struck out