MANDECLY LTD v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS

MANDECLY LTD v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS

The court found the parties jointly responsible for a gross underestimation of trial length and for failing to notify the court in time; therefore the court refused to disrupt existing diary allocations or permit the party-funded appointment of a Deputy Judge and ordered the earliest available date for resumption of the trial on 13 March 2006.

Citation
MANDECLY LTD v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: MANDECLY LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: CHAN TAT MAN; 1st Defendant: HAO WEI; 2nd Defendant: TOP CROWN CONSULTANTS LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: MANDAS REAL ESTATE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 February 2005
Case Number
HCA1216/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (court of First Instance) / Adjourned Part Heard; Interlocutory Application for Resumption of Trial
Outcome
Application for an earlier resumption was refused insofar as it sought to disrupt the court diary or to permit party-funded appointment of a Deputy Judge; the court fixed a new resumption date.
Legal Topics
Case Overrunning, Time Estimation of Trial, Adjournment of Part Heard Trials, Appointment of Deputy Judge, Professional Responsibility of Counsel
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Court Administration Trial Management Case Overrunning Time Estimation of Trial Adjournment of Part Heard Trials Appointment of Deputy Judge Professional Responsibility of Counsel

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MANDECLY LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

CHAN TAT MAN

2nd Plaintiff

HAO WEI

1st Defendant

TOP CROWN CONSULTANTS LIMITED

2nd Defendant

MANDAS REAL ESTATE LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (court of First Instance) / Adjourned Part Heard; Interlocutory Application for Resumption of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be resumed earlier than the next available diary slot
  2. 2 Whether parties may fund or require appointment of a Deputy Judge to complete an overrun hearing
  3. 3 Who bears responsibility for gross underestimation of trial duration and failure to inform the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the parties jointly responsible for a gross underestimation of trial length and for failing to notify the court in time; therefore the court refused to disrupt existing diary allocations or permit the party-funded appointment of a Deputy Judge and ordered the earliest available date for resumption of the trial on 13 March 2006.

Court Disposition

Application for an earlier resumption was refused insofar as it sought to disrupt the court diary or to permit party-funded appointment of a Deputy Judge; the court fixed a new resumption date.

Orders

  • Trial to resume on 13 March 2006 (earliest available date)
  • Proposal to finance or appoint a Deputy Judge to complete the remaining hearing days refused as unacceptable/illegal