CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. UBS AG
The court refused transfer to the Commercial List and assigned the case to a general list judge because the pleadings do not raise novel or specialist commercial law or IPO practice issues that would require Commercial List expertise; the case principally concerns allegations of fraud, dishonesty and breach of fiduciary duties which generalist judges can adjudicate; related proceedings do not compel transfer; and procedural safeguards can secure effective case management without Commercial List allocation.
- Citation
- [2023] HKCFI 1943
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited (In Liquidation); 2nd Plaintiff: Cosimo Borrelli and Chi Lai Man Jocelyn in their capacity as the joint and several liquidators of China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited; 1st Defendant: UBS AG; 2nd Defendant (dismissed): UBS Europe SE (formerly trading as UBS Limited)
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 27 July 2023
- Case Number
- HCA1348/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Commercial Litigation — Dispute Over Assignment to Court List / Case Management — Application for Transfer to Commercial List
- Outcome
- Application to transfer to the Commercial List refused; case assigned to a judge in the general civil list
- Legal Topics
- Assignment to Commercial List, IPO Sponsor Duties, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Fraudulent Trading (s275 Cap 32), Case Management and List Allocation
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited (In Liquidation)
1st Plaintiff
Cosimo Borrelli and Chi Lai Man Jocelyn in their capacity as the joint and several liquidators of China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited
2nd Plaintiff
UBS AG
1st Defendant
UBS Europe SE (formerly trading as UBS Limited)
2nd Defendant (dismissed)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Litigation — Dispute Over Assignment to Court List / Case Management — Application for Transfer to Commercial List
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the action should be transferred to the Commercial List or assigned to the general civil list
- 2 Whether the issues require specialist commercial expertise or are primarily fraud/dishonesty issues
- 3 Whether the case falls for assignment under PD 5.7 and related practice directions
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused transfer to the Commercial List and assigned the case to a general list judge because the pleadings do not raise novel or specialist commercial law or IPO practice issues that would require Commercial List expertise; the case principally concerns allegations of fraud, dishonesty and breach of fiduciary duties which generalist judges can adjudicate; related proceedings do not compel transfer; and procedural safeguards can secure effective case management without Commercial List allocation.
Court Disposition
Application to transfer to the Commercial List refused; case assigned to a judge in the general civil list
Orders
- Costs in the cause with certificate for junior counsel
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment