LEE SHING v. LEE SING LEUNG ROBIN

LEE SHING v. LEE SING LEUNG ROBIN

Order 4 r9(1) was engaged because the causes of action arose from one continuous series of related transactions between the same parties; formal consolidation with a single set of consolidated pleadings was appropriate because it would save time and costs and clarify issues; consolidated pleadings are not a licence to plead new substantive matters without leave; the undertakings given by Robin are consistent and enforceable; accordingly Master Lam’s Order directing consolidated pleadings is upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1711
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 1050/2015) and 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim (hca 1050/2015): Yong Li Investments Limited; Defendant (original Action HCA 1050/2015) and Plaintiff by Counterclaim (hca 1050/2015); Defendant (hca 542/2016): Lee Sing Leung Robin; 1st Defendant by Counterclaim (hca 1050/2015) and Plaintiff (hca 542/2016): Lee Shing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Case Number
HCA542/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Case Management Order for Consolidation / Appeal From Master to Judge in Chambers; Pleadings Closed; Pre Trial Case Management (pre Exchange of Witness Statements)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Lam's Order for formal consolidation with consolidated pleadings upheld
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Actions, Consolidated Pleadings, Order 4 Rule 9(1) RHC, Amendment of Pleadings, Share Charges and Indemnity, Case Management Discretion, Costs Order
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Costs Consolidation of Actions Consolidated Pleadings Order 4 Rule 9(1) RHC Amendment of Pleadings +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yong Li Investments Limited

Plaintiff (hca 1050/2015) and 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim (hca 1050/2015)

Lee Sing Leung Robin

Defendant (original Action HCA 1050/2015) and Plaintiff by Counterclaim (hca 1050/2015); Defendant (hca 542/2016)

Lee Shing

1st Defendant by Counterclaim (hca 1050/2015) and Plaintiff (hca 542/2016)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Case Management Order for Consolidation / Appeal From Master to Judge in Chambers; Pleadings Closed; Pre Trial Case Management (pre Exchange of Witness Statements)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 4, rule 9(1) is engaged
  2. 2 Whether formal consolidation with consolidated pleadings should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether consolidated pleadings permit pleading new substantive matters without leave

Ratio Decidendi

Order 4 r9(1) was engaged because the causes of action arose from one continuous series of related transactions between the same parties; formal consolidation with a single set of consolidated pleadings was appropriate because it would save time and costs and clarify issues; consolidated pleadings are not a licence to plead new substantive matters without leave; the undertakings given by Robin are consistent and enforceable; accordingly Master Lam’s Order directing consolidated pleadings is upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Lam's Order for formal consolidation with consolidated pleadings upheld

Orders

  • Master Lam’s Order for formal consolidation with directions for filing a set of consolidated pleadings stands
  • The undertakings given by Robin are to remain in effect