SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Where two pending causes arise from substantially the same facts and the criteria of O.4 r.9 RHC are met, the court may order consolidation; the earlier action in time should normally determine who are plaintiffs in the consolidated action, and lack of service out of jurisdiction is not a bar to consolidation where...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: Sunco Property Holdings Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Huge Rise Investments Limited; 1st Defendant: Sunco China Holdings Limited; 2nd Defendant: Sunco Management Holdings Limited; 3rd Defendant: Sun Hongbin
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 2008
- Case Number
- HCA148/2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Consolidation Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master's Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed insofar as consolidation is concerned and the master's order varied
- Legal Topics
- Consolidation of Actions, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Option Agreement Breach, Choice of Plaintiff in Consolidated Action
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sunco Property Holdings Company Limited
1st Plaintiff
Huge Rise Investments Limited
2nd Plaintiff
Sunco China Holdings Limited
1st Defendant
Sunco Management Holdings Limited
2nd Defendant
Sun Hongbin
3rd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Consolidation Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master's Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether two causes should be consolidated under O.4 r.9 RHC
- 2 Which parties should be plaintiffs in the consolidated action
- 3 Whether lack of service out of jurisdiction prevents consolidation
Ratio Decidendi
Where two pending causes arise from substantially the same facts and the criteria of O.4 r.9 RHC are met, the court may order consolidation; the earlier action in time should normally determine who are plaintiffs in the consolidated action, and lack of service out of jurisdiction is not a bar to consolidation where parties are represented and service can be obtained.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed insofar as consolidation is concerned and the master's order varied
Orders
- Dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to the order for consolidation
- Order that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in HCA 2145/2007 shall be regarded as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in the consolidated action
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj HCA 148/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 148 OF 2008 BETWEEN SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LIMITED 1st Plaintiff SUNCO MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as SUNCO BINHAI LAND LIMITED) 1st Defendant HUGE RISE INVESTMENTS LIMITED 2nd Defendant AND BETWEEN HCA 2145/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 2145 OF 2007 BETWEEN SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as SUNCO BINHAI LAND LIMITED) 1st Plaintiff HUGE RISE INVESTMENTS LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LIMITED 1st Defendant SUNCO MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS LIMITED 2nd Defendant SUN HONGBIN n appeal from the order of Master de Souza made on 10 March 2008 ordering that HCA no. 148 of 2008 be consolidated with HCA no. 2145 of 2007. The master also ordered that the plaintiffs in HCA no. 148 of 2008 shall be regarded as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in the consolidated action and that the plaintiffs in HCA no. 2145 of 2007 shall be regarded as the counterclaiming 1st and 2nd defendants in the consolidated action. AUTONUMOUT Quite clearly, the action first in time is the HCA no. 2145 of 2007. On 10 October 2007 Sunco Property Holdings Company Limited ( Sunco ) and Huge Rise Investments Limited ( Huge Rise ) commenced HCA no. 2145 of 2007 ( the 1st action ) against Sunco China Holdings Limited ( Sunco China ), Sunco Management Holdings Limited ( Sunco Management ) and Sun Hongbin ( ). AUTONUMOUT Sunco A and Huge Rise s claim is for the sum of RMB 288 million or damages for breach of warranties given by Sunco China and Sunco Management, and against Mr Sun as guarantor, under an option agreement for the sale and purchase of shares dated 23 January 2007. AUTONUMOUT The writ and statement of claim in the 1st action was served on Sunco China in Hong Kong on 13 December 2007 and on Sunco Management in the BVI on 7 January 2008. AUTONUMOUT Sunco Holdings and Sunco Management have acknowledged service of the writ in the 1st action. Leave to serve Mr Sun in the US has already been granted and service has been effected on him. AUTONUMOUT HCA no. 148 of 2008 ( the 2nd action ) was commenced by Sunco China and Sunco Management on 25 January 2008 against Sunco A and Huge Rise. Their claim is for declaratory relief arising from breach of the same agreement namely, the option agreement for the sale and purchase of shares dated 23 January 2007. AUTONUMOUT The writ in the 2nd action has not yet been served. AUTONUMOUT On 5 February 2008 Sunco China and Sunco Management issued the summons for consolidation of the 1st and 2nd actions and for directions that they be made plaintiffs in the consolidated action. AUTONUMOUT On 7 March 2008 Sunco China and Sunco Management filed a defence and counterclaim. On the same day and at the same time they filed a statement of claim in the 2nd action. The relief sought in the counterclaim by Sunco China and Sunco Management in the 1st action are the same as the relief claimed in the statement of claim in the 2nd action. The facts relied upon in both actions are for all material purposes the same. AUTONUMOUT On 10 March 2008 the master, on the hearing of the summons for consolidation, made the order that I have mentioned. AUTONUMOUT Two matters have developed since the master s order. The first is that on 7 April 2008 an application was made to serve HCA no. 148 of 2008 out of the jurisdiction. It is not clear why that was so since by that time an order for consolidation had been made. This appears to be an error made by the solicitors. AUTONUMOUT The second matter that has occurred is that on 11 April 2008 the defence and counterclaim in the 1st action was amended by the deletion of the counterclaim. So there is no longer any counterclaim in the 1st action. AUTONUMOUT Whatever the position might have been before the master it seems to me that the present position is that there are two causes pending in the Court. It appears to me that the provisions of O. 4, r. 9(a) and (b) RHC are satisfied and the Court may order those causes to be consolidated on such terms as it thinks just. AUTONUMOUT It seems to me that Mr Jat Sew Tong SC is right when he says that the proceedings will still have to be served out of the jurisdiction or an order for substituted service will have to be obtained. That has not yet been done. However, I do not think that is a bar to the Court making an order for consolidation. The reality of the matter is that all the parties are represented by solicitors and counsel in Hong Kong and I do not foresee any difficulty in obtaining the proper orders for service. AUTONUMOUT In the circumstances it seems to me that it is right that the order for consolidation should remain. However, it seems to me that the plaintiffs in the consolidated action should be Sunco A and Huge Rise since the 1st action was commenced first in time and if they prefer to be the plaintiffs then, in my view, they ought to be. AUTONUMOUT I would dismiss the appeal insofar as the order for consolidation is concerned and vary the order of the master in respect of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. I order that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in HCA no. 2145 of 2007 shall be regarded as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in the consolidated action and that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in HCA no. 2145 of 2007 shall be regarded as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in the consolidated action. I shall hear counsel if they wish me to make any further directions at this stage. (Arjan H. Sakhrani) Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court Mr Jat Sew-Tong SC & Mr Hectar Pun, instructed by M/s Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in HCA 2145/2007 Mr Johnny Mok SC, instructed by M/s Huen Wong & Co, for the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in HCA 148/2008 and 1st and 2nd Defendants in HCA 2145/2007 3rd Defendant in HCA 2145/2007, absent PAGE - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V 1udk 1udk S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V (#p# (#p# (#p# (#p# (#p# r p# r p# (#p# "@AB9D 7 ,M +w6. / Jz @m2z ]C]6 %gVl^ uxB26I ]C]6 %gVl +w6. & 6" abc-Sak-HCA.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8