TANG CHUNG WAH aka TANG CHUNG WAH, ALAN AND ANOTHER v. JONATHAN RUSSELL LEONG AND OTHERS

TANG CHUNG WAH aka TANG CHUNG WAH, ALAN AND ANOTHER v. JONATHAN RUSSELL LEONG AND OTHERS

Issue estoppel did not bar the plaintiffs’ internal partnership claims because the Tribunal’s Award only determined that the majority rule allowed the defendants to bind the partnership vis‑à‑vis GTIL and explicitly did not decide construction of clause 7.1 or alleged breaches by the majority; those internal disputes were never adjudicated by the Tribunal and thus cannot be struck out on issue estoppel or abuse of process grounds.

Citation
TANG CHUNG WAH aka TANG CHUNG WAH, ALAN AND ANOTHER v. JONATHAN RUSSELL LEONG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TANG CHUNG WAH; 2nd Plaintiff: LEE FUNG YING, ALISON; 1st Defendant: JONATHAN RUSSELL LEONG; 2nd Defendant: CHIU WING CHEUNG, RINGO; 3rd Defendant: LAM HUNG YUN, ANDREW; 4th Defendant: GARY TERENCE JAMES; 5th Defendant: LO NGAI HANG, TONY (aka LO NGAI HANG); 6th Defendant: AU YIU KWAN, ALVIN (aka AU YIU KWAN); 7th Defendant: PATRICK ROZARIO; 8th Defendant: LI WING YIN, AMOS (aka LI WING YIN); 9th Defendant: TSUI KA CHE, NORMAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 October 2013
Case Number
HCA1691/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Partnership Dispute and Injunctions; Arbitration Enforcement Cross Issues / Interlocutory Striking Out Application in Chambers (decision on Summons)
Outcome
Defendants’ summons to strike out paragraphs 54–72 inclusive and reliefs 3–5, 12 and 13 dismissed in its entirety
Legal Topics
Issue Estoppel, Enforcement of Arbitration Award, Authority of Majority Partners, Breach of Partnership Deed (clause 7.1), Striking Out as Frivolous or Vexatious, Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Partnership Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Res Judicata / Issue Estoppel Fiduciary Duties Issue Estoppel Enforcement of Arbitration Award Authority of Majority Partners +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TANG CHUNG WAH

1st Plaintiff

LEE FUNG YING, ALISON

2nd Plaintiff

JONATHAN RUSSELL LEONG

1st Defendant

CHIU WING CHEUNG, RINGO

2nd Defendant

LAM HUNG YUN, ANDREW

3rd Defendant

GARY TERENCE JAMES

4th Defendant

LO NGAI HANG, TONY (aka LO NGAI HANG)

5th Defendant

AU YIU KWAN, ALVIN (aka AU YIU KWAN)

6th Defendant

PATRICK ROZARIO

7th Defendant

LI WING YIN, AMOS (aka LI WING YIN)

8th Defendant

TSUI KA CHE, NORMAN

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Partnership Dispute and Injunctions; Arbitration Enforcement Cross Issues / Interlocutory Striking Out Application in Chambers (decision on Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether issue estoppel arising from a London arbitration award and its leave to enforce in Hong Kong bars the plaintiffs’ internal partnership claims and justifies striking out paragraphs 54–72 and reliefs 3–5,12–13 of the Statement of Claim
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal’s Award adjudicated internal disputes between majority and minority partners (specifically construction and application of clause 7.1 of the DOT and alleged breaches)
  3. 3 Whether the defendants had lawful authority to enter into the Settlement Deed and whether that finding precludes plaintiffs’ claims for bad faith, indemnity and conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

Issue estoppel did not bar the plaintiffs’ internal partnership claims because the Tribunal’s Award only determined that the majority rule allowed the defendants to bind the partnership vis‑à‑vis GTIL and explicitly did not decide construction of clause 7.1 or alleged breaches by the majority; those internal disputes were never adjudicated by the Tribunal and thus cannot be struck out on issue estoppel or abuse of process grounds.

Court Disposition

Defendants’ summons to strike out paragraphs 54–72 inclusive and reliefs 3–5, 12 and 13 dismissed in its entirety

Orders

  • Application by summons dated 30 April 2013 dismissed in full
  • Nisi costs order: defendants to pay plaintiffs’ costs of the application and hearing to be taxed if not agreed and paid forthwith