CHAN WAN KEUNG WILLIAM v. GROCERY HOLDINGS PTY. LTD.

CHAN WAN KEUNG WILLIAM v. GROCERY HOLDINGS PTY. LTD.

The consolidation applications were dismissed because they were filed late, relied on proposed amendments not before the court or opposing counsel, did not show compelling grounds for consolidation, and consolidation would likely prejudice the existing trial timetable; the certificate for two counsel was refused because on the present papers the matter was within the competence of junior counsel.

Citation
CHAN WAN KEUNG WILLIAM v. GROCERY HOLDINGS PTY. LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: William Chan Wan-Keung trading as Winley Trading Company; Defendant/applicant: Grocery Holdings Pty. Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 July 1997
Case Number
HCCL207/1994
Procedural Posture
Commercial List — Civil (contract Dispute) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application: Application for Consolidation and Certificate for Two Counsel; Trial Listed 17 20 November 1997
Outcome
Summonses for consolidation dismissed with costs; application for certificate for two counsel refused; existing November 17-20 1997 trial listing for CL-169/95 to stand unless and until further order.
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Actions, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs, Certificate for Two Counsel, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contract Law Consolidation of Actions Amendment of Pleadings Costs Certificate for Two Counsel Case Management

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Chan Wan-Keung trading as Winley Trading Company

Plaintiff/respondent

Grocery Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial List — Civil (contract Dispute) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Application: Application for Consolidation and Certificate for Two Counsel; Trial Listed 17 20 November 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CL-169/95 should be consolidated with CL-161/94, CL-207/94 and CL-208/94
  2. 2 Whether proposed but unserved amendments justify consolidation
  3. 3 Whether the November 1997 trial listing should be vacated or delayed

Ratio Decidendi

The consolidation applications were dismissed because they were filed late, relied on proposed amendments not before the court or opposing counsel, did not show compelling grounds for consolidation, and consolidation would likely prejudice the existing trial timetable; the certificate for two counsel was refused because on the present papers the matter was within the competence of junior counsel.

Court Disposition

Summonses for consolidation dismissed with costs; application for certificate for two counsel refused; existing November 17-20 1997 trial listing for CL-169/95 to stand unless and until further order.

Orders

  • Dismiss the summonses dated 26 May 1997 and 28 May 1997 seeking consolidation, with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent
  • Refuse the application for a certificate to instruct two counsel