FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SHEA YING FAI t/a DAMIEN SHEA & CO, SOLICITORS

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
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Solicitors Conduct Case Management Stay of Proceedings Common Witnesses Duplication of Evidence Trial Directions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the Consolidated Solicitors Proceedings should be stayed pending determination of the Consolidated Main Proceedings
  2. 2 Whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the trial directions given 1 September 2016
  3. 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.