RE HANG TAK BUDDHIST HALL ASSOCIATION LTD

RE HANG TAK BUDDHIST HALL ASSOCIATION LTD

The application for a split trial was refused because the factual findings required to determine legal consequences and appropriate relief overlap materially with the legal issues and cannot safely or conveniently be separated; respondents' evidence requires testing and unforeseen developments in evidence may arise, so the issues must be tried together.

Citation
RE HANG TAK BUDDHIST HALL ASSOCIATION LTD
Parties
Petitioners: Petitioners; Company: Hang Tak Buddhist Hall Association Limited; Respondents: 1st–2nd, 4th–5th, 7th Respondents and Cheung Hiu Yin (alleged member of 8th Respondent); 9th Respondent: Secretary for Justice; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 July 2003
Case Number
HCCW796/2001
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Petition / Pre Trial Ruling on Application to Split Trial
Outcome
Application for split trial refused
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Section 168 a Remedies, Parens Patriae, Split Trial Application, Relief and Beneficiaries
Source Language
EN
Company Law Charity Law Civil Procedure Winding Up Section 168 a Remedies Parens Patriae Split Trial Application Relief and Beneficiaries

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioners

Petitioners

Hang Tak Buddhist Hall Association Limited

Company

1st–2nd, 4th–5th, 7th Respondents and Cheung Hiu Yin (alleged member of 8th Respondent)

Respondents

Secretary for Justice

9th Respondent

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Petition / Pre Trial Ruling on Application to Split Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order a split trial separating factual disputes from legal consequences
  2. 2 Whether proved facts establish grounds for a remedy under section 177(1)(f) of Cap.32
  3. 3 Whether proved facts establish grounds for a remedy under section 168A of Cap.32

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a split trial was refused because the factual findings required to determine legal consequences and appropriate relief overlap materially with the legal issues and cannot safely or conveniently be separated; respondents' evidence requires testing and unforeseen developments in evidence may arise, so the issues must be tried together.

Court Disposition

Application for split trial refused

Orders

  • Application for split trial refused
  • Secretary for Justice remains a party and may determine extent of participation at trial