ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANIING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANIING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Because the judge had expressed strongly adverse views about the Bank and its officers in the liability judgment and would be required to assess the same witnesses and issues at the Remedy Trial, a reasonable lay person could perceive a possibility of pre-judgment; accordingly the judge must recuse and the Remedy...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANIING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Esquire (Electronics) Limited; Plaintiff: Magic Score Limited; 1st Defendant: The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited; 2nd Defendant: Wayfoong Property Limited (formerly HS Property Management Limited)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Case Number
HCA11077/1994
Procedural Posture
Civil / Recusal Application Prior to Remedy Trial (in Chambers Recusal Judgment)
Outcome
Application for recusal granted; Remedy Trial to be heard by another judge (recusal ordered).
Legal Topics
Apprehended Bias, Pre Judgment, Recusal, Remedy Trial
Source Language
en
Judicial Recusal Civil Procedure Bias (apparent) Apprehended Bias Pre Judgment Recusal Remedy Trial

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esquire (Electronics) Limited

Plaintiff

Magic Score Limited

Plaintiff

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

1st Defendant

Wayfoong Property Limited (formerly HS Property Management Limited)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Recusal Application Prior to Remedy Trial (in Chambers Recusal Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse for apparent bias due to prior critical comments in the liability judgment
  2. 2 Whether prior adverse comments about witnesses/officers create an appearance of pre-judgment affecting fairness of the Remedy Trial
  3. 3 Whether costs of the recusal application should be costs in the cause

Ratio Decidendi

Because the judge had expressed strongly adverse views about the Bank and its officers in the liability judgment and would be required to assess the same witnesses and issues at the Remedy Trial, a reasonable lay person could perceive a possibility of pre-judgment; accordingly the judge must recuse and the Remedy Trial must be heard by another judge, with costs of the application in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal granted; Remedy Trial to be heard by another judge (recusal ordered).

Orders

  • Remedy Trial to be listed before another judge (Lam J arranged to hear the trial starting 20 June).
  • First PTR to be before Lam J on 21 April and second PTR on 23 May.