FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SHEA YING FAI t/a DAMIEN SHEA & CO, SOLICITORS
The stay was dismissed because there was no significant change of circumstances since the trial directions of 1 September 2016 and because a stay would create a real risk of duplicated examination of common witnesses, inconsistent factual findings, and unnecessary duplication of costs and judicial time.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SHEA YING FAI t/a DAMIEN SHEA & CO, SOLICITORS
- Parties
- Plaintiff: FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: WONG SEE YIN; 3rd Defendant: FULLY FORTUNE (ASIA) LIMITED; Applicant/defendant (hca 376/2013 & HCA 377/2013): Damien Shea & Co Solicitors
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 9 February 2017
- Case Number
- HCA377/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Interlocutory / Case Management Decision
- Outcome
- Stay application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Common Witnesses, Duplication of Evidence, Trial Directions
- 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
FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Plaintiff
WONG SEE YIN
1st Defendant
FULLY FORTUNE (ASIA) LIMITED
3rd Defendant
Damien Shea & Co Solicitors
Applicant/defendant (hca 376/2013 & HCA 377/2013)
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Interlocutory / Case Management Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings should be stayed pending determination of the Consolidated Main Proceedings
- 2 Whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the trial directions given 1 September 2016
- 3 Whether staying the solicitors proceedings would cause duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings
Ratio Decidendi
The stay was dismissed because there was no significant change of circumstances since the trial directions of 1 September 2016 and because a stay would create a real risk of duplicated examination of common witnesses, inconsistent factual findings, and unnecessary duplication of costs and judicial time.
Court Disposition
Stay application dismissed
Orders
- Summons dated 29 December 2016 for a stay of all proceedings in HCA 376/2013 and HCA 377/2013 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj ee_) nd Defendant FULLY FORTUNE (ASIA) LIMITED 3rd Defendant ______________________ HCA 1801/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1801 OF 2010 ______________________ BETWEEN FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff AND WONG SEE YIN ( ee_) _+^L _+^L E C I S I O N In these proceedings, Damien Shea & Co Solicitors ( ) have issued a Summons dated 29 December 2016, applying for a stay of all proceedings in HCA 376/2013 and HCA 377/2013 ( the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings ), pending determination of the outcome of the trial in HCA 167/2011 and HCA 1801/2010 ( the Consolidated Main Proceedings ). DSC submit that depending on the court s finding made in the trial in the Consolidated Main Proceedings, it may render the trial in the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings unnecessary. If the court in the Consolidated Main Proceedings finds in favour of the Wong parties that there was no misrepresentation and that the transfer of the subject properties was pursuant to a genuine commercial arrangement, then the claim against the solicitors will fail as well. If the court in the Consolidated Main Proceedings finds in favour of the plaintiffs and they are able to fully recover their loss from the Wong parties, they will have no further loss to claim against DSC. Further, the determination of liability and quantum in the Consolidated Main Proceedings will assist the parties in the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings to be better informed as to the merits of the claim in the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings and the likely quantum (if any). This will facilitate and encourage settlement negotiations. DSC s stay application is opposed by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants in the Consolidated Main Proceedings, essentially on two grounds: The court has already given the relevant trial directions after hearing the parties at the 3rd Case Management Conference on 1 September 2016, and that there has not been any change of circumstances that would justify changing the directions already ordered by the court. Considerations of common witnesses and overlapping issues warrants the directions already given by this court at the 3rd Case Management Conference on 1 September 2016. Having considered the parties submissions, I am of the view that the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings should not be stayed. In coming to this view, I note that: Relevant directions for trial of the Consolidated Main Proceedings and the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings have already been made by this court on 1 September 2016, after hearing and considering all the views and submissions made on behalf of the parties. There has not been any appeal against the order made by this court on 1 September 2016. hmfd hmfd |j|_ hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd gdmfd qaRC hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd gdmfd UJ7/ gdmfd yohdhdhZJyo@yoy hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd hmfd hinm zk`M`>, gdxK weXNA5A5- hmfd hmfd uhu[ hmfd gdZG There is no suggestion by DSC that there has been significant change of any circumstances since 1 September 2016 that merits a reconsideration of the trial directions given by this court on 1 September 2016. Further, I agree with the plaintiffs that if the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings are stayed, there is a real risk that the common witnesses in the Consolidated Main Proceedings and the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings will have to be examined twice on the same factual issues. It will create a highly undesirable situation with a real and inherent risk of inconsistent findings of fact and the aggravated result of duplication of costs and waste of judicial time involved. For the reasons set out above, I order that DSC s stay application should be dismissed. (Wilson Chan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Jeremy Cheung, instructed by Joseph Li & Co, for the plaintiff (HCA 1801/2010 & HCA 377/2013) Mr Michael Liu, instructed by Joseph Li & Co, for the plaintiff (HCA 167/2011 & HCA 376/2013) The 1st defendant, in person (HCA 167/2011 and HCA 1801/2010) The 2nd and 3rd defendants were represented by the 1st defendant (HCA 167/2011 and HCA 1801/2010) Mr Victor Dawes, SC, leading Mr Val Chow, instructed by Smyth & Co, for the defendant (HCA 376 /2013 & HCA 377/2013) PAGE - PAGE - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R 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 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R 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 rcrWrHWrW hmfd &`#$ rnrnrnrn hmfd hmfd &`#$ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> &tBL >z Q H+|: >z Q DCCJ643/2003 setup Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong SAR DCCJ643/2003 Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APASixthEditionOfficeOnline.xsl" StyleName="APA" Version="6" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{7187B81F-E294-4D02-8840-841177269707}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8