朱鳳娟 對 朱有榮及另五人
The court exercised its case management powers to grant limited extensions for unrepresented respondents to file defences, to consolidate and manage HCMP and related HCA matters together because of overlapping factual issues, and to order and timetable mediation with specified document production and reporting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 2904
- Parties
- Petitioner: Gee Fung Kuen (朱鳳娟); 1st Respondent: Gee Yau Wing Terry (朱有榮); 2nd Respondent: Gee Pak Cheong (朱柏昌); 3rd Respondent: Gee Fung Yin (朱鳳妍); 4th Respondent: Gee Shing Kai (朱盛佳); 5th Respondent: Metropolis Enterprises Limited (英都貿易有限公司); 6th Respondent: True Treasure Investment Limited (緯衡投資有限公司)
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 21 November 2019
- Case Number
- HCMP798/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Petition Under Companies Ordinance (sections 723 726) and Related Civil Litigation (hcmp and HCA Consolidation) / Case Management Hearing / Directions and Pre Trial Case Management
- Outcome
- Directions issued, adjournment granted for specified respondents, mediation ordered, timetable and case management dates fixed, costs allocation for preparation of specified documents ordered to HCMP
- Legal Topics
- Sections 723 726 Companies Ordinance, Case Management and Consolidation, Mediation and Settlement, Service of Process, Representation and Adjournment
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gee Fung Kuen (朱鳳娟)
Petitioner
Gee Yau Wing Terry (朱有榮)
1st Respondent
Gee Pak Cheong (朱柏昌)
2nd Respondent
Gee Fung Yin (朱鳳妍)
3rd Respondent
Gee Shing Kai (朱盛佳)
4th Respondent
Metropolis Enterprises Limited (英都貿易有限公司)
5th Respondent
True Treasure Investment Limited (緯衡投資有限公司)
6th Respondent
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Companies Ordinance (sections 723 726) and Related Civil Litigation (hcmp and HCA Consolidation) / Case Management Hearing / Directions and Pre Trial Case Management
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant time for unrepresented respondents to obtain representation and file defences
- 2 How to manage and consolidate HCMP and related HCA proceedings with common factual issues
- 3 Whether to order mediation and specify documents and timetable for mediation
Ratio Decidendi
The court exercised its case management powers to grant limited extensions for unrepresented respondents to file defences, to consolidate and manage HCMP and related HCA matters together because of overlapping factual issues, and to order and timetable mediation with specified document production and reporting requirements so as to progress the disputes efficiently.
Court Disposition
Directions issued, adjournment granted for specified respondents, mediation ordered, timetable and case management dates fixed, costs allocation for preparation of specified documents ordered to HCMP
Orders
- Second and third respondents allowed two months to file and serve defences, deadline 21 January 2020
- Case management conference fixed on 9 March 2020 at 10:00am for two hours; HCA 2950/2015 and HCA 2287/2018 to be heard together that day
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCMP 797 & 798/2017 (Consolidated) [2019] HKCFI 2904 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOS 797 AND 798 OF 2017 ____________ IN THE MATTER of TRUE TREASURE INVESTMENT LIMITED (緯衡投資有限公司) and IN THE MATTER of METROPOLIS ENTERPRISES LIMITED (英都貿易有限公司) and IN THE MATTER of Sections 723 to 726 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) ____________ BETWEEN GEE FUNG KUEN (朱鳳娟) Petitioner and GEE YAU WING TERRY (朱有榮) 1st Respondent GEE PAK CHEONG (朱柏昌) 2nd Respondent GEE FUNG YIN (朱鳳妍) 3rd Respondent GEE SHING KAI (朱盛佳) 4th Respondent METROPOLIS ENTERPRISES LIMITED (英都貿易有限公司) 5th Respondent TRUE TREASURE INVESTMENT LIMITED (緯衡投資有限公司) 6th Respondent ____________ (Consolidated pursuant to the Order of the Honourable Madam Justice Au-Yeung dated 3 April 2019) 主審法官:高等法院原訟法庭法官歐陽桂如內庭聆訊 聆訊日期:2019年11月21日 判決書日期:2019年11月21日 判 決 書 首先,因為第二答辯人朱柏昌先生今天是第一次出現在本案,即HCMP案件的聆訊,因此,法庭需要給時間他請律師,他要求是兩至三個月,所以本席定為兩個月。第三答辯人朱鳳妍女士仍然未見出席,所以朱鳳娟作為呈請人,須盡快將文件送給朱鳳妍在澳門的地址,本席亦都提醒朱鳳妍,須盡快參與本案,因為本案是會影響她在Metropolis及True Treasure內的利益。 今天遺憾地,HCA 2950/2015及HCA 2287/2018的當事方Metropolis沒有被通知出席,所以法庭不能作出一些指示去約束Metropolis如何準備案件。但很明顯地,因為法庭看過HCMP及HCA的案件管理文件冊,兩件案實在是有共通的地方,亦適宜一併處理,因此,本席今天先給予HCMP的指示,但本席要求朱鳳娟方作為呈請人,立即與Metropolis聯繫,處理HCA案件的準備。 本席亦期望Metropolis在HCA案件能夠與朱鳳娟女士達成協議,跟隨以下的指示所定的時間表,去準備HCA的案件。如果不能達成協議,他們仍然可以盡快到法庭取進一步的指示。 就着HCMP的案件,本席作出以下的指示: 容許朱柏昌先生及朱鳳妍女士有多兩個月的時間,可以存檔及送達答辯書,期限是2020年1月21日; 本案件管理會議將另定於2020年3月9日早上10時,進行第二次會議,預留兩小時,當天HCA 2950/2015及HCA 2287/2018兩宗訴訟將一併進行聆訊; HCMP案件的當事人需要安排調解,並且盡量於2020年6月9日前完成。朱鳳娟女士須提供予調解員及各相關訴訟方以下的文件: HCMP及HCA之間一套各方協議的事實撮要; HCMP及HCA各方之間協議的爭議點清單; 朱鳳娟女士作為呈請人要申索的濟助清單,而該些濟助若果是金錢方面的判決,她必須列出她要求的金額及計算方式; Metropolis在HCA要求的濟助的清單,如果是涉及金錢的濟助,Metropolis需要提供金額及計算方法;及 雙方應該提供Metropolis及True Treasure大概的價值,並且給予調解員該兩間公司最後的財政報告,本調解應該由HCMP及HCA各方參與。 在調解完成後14天,呈請人朱鳳娟需要向管理HCMP及HCA案件的法官報告結果; 暫定HCA及HCMP於2020年7月3日再進行案件管理會議;及 呈請人朱鳳娟需要立即通知HCA案件的Metropolis,關於HCMP案在今天法庭所給的指示,朱女士及Metropolis需要盡量協議一份與今天HCMP相類同的指示,以致Metropolis可以在HCA案件出席2020年3月9日的聆訊;若雙方未能協議,朱鳳娟女士需要在14天內,在HCA案件發出傳票,由本席於2020年12月9日上午9時30分進行聆訊。 以上所述是HCMP案在今天發出的指示,由今天至下次案件管理的時間,即2020年3月9日,有約4個月時間,訴訟各方應該開始草擬證人供詞,因為在3月9日的案件管理會議中,法庭將考慮這4個月所給予雙方的時間,預計只會再另給予四星期,即至4月9日給各方草擬證人陳述書,這些證人陳述書預計會協助雙方在6月9日前進行調解,及在調解不成功後,於7月3日再向法庭要求指示,因此,HCMP及HCA各方應該彼此合作協調,善用時間,並且索取大律師的意見,預計在3月9日的管理會議,法庭會要求各方考慮是否有其他非正審申請,又或者是否需要引入專家證人證據。 由於HCMP及HCA兩案之間在事實方面的共通點,法庭初步認為,HCA及HCMP案件應該排在一起審訊責任問題,因此,本席促請朱鳳娟女士立即與HCA代表Metropolis的律師聯絡,就着案件管理的指示達成協議,若能達成協議,則2020年3月17日在聆案官席前的案件管理傳票聆訊便可以取消。 今天HCMP案件管理聆訊的訟費,包括準備事實的撮要、爭議點的清單及各方協議的指示備忘的訟費,歸於HCMP的案件。 (歐陽桂如) 高等法院原訟法庭法官 呈請人:由譚百全律師行轉聘司徒景倫大律師代表 第一答辯人:由李易律師事務所轉聘李俊軒大律師代表 第二答辯人:無律師代表,親自應訊 第三、第五及第六答辯人:無律師代表,缺席聆訊 第四答辯人:由杜亮邦律師事務所轉聘紀順治大律師代表