HILLHEAD LTD. v. SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG AND OTHERS
It is inappropriate for the judge seized with the substantive proceedings to hear the trustee's Beddoe application; the Beddoe application must be adjourned to and heard by another judge to preserve impartiality and prevent disclosure of the trustee's legal advice.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- HILLHEAD LTD. v. SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG AND OTHERS
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hillhead Limited; 1st Defendant: Sean Eric McLean Hotung; 2nd Defendant: Eric Edward Hotung; 3rd Defendant: Mara Tegwen Hotung Lamb; 4th Defendant: Sheridan Patricia Hotung Shea; 5th Defendant: Gabrielle Marie Hotung; 6th Defendant: Patricia Ann Hotung; 7th Defendant: Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung; 8th Defendant: Michael Eric Hotung
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 15 January 2003
- Case Number
- HCMP5250/2002
- Procedural Posture
- Beddoe Application (order 85 R.2(1), Rules of the High Court, Cap.4) / Interlocutory — Adjournment to Another Judge
- Outcome
- Application adjourned to another judge for hearing; three hours to be reserved and an early hearing date to be fixed.
- Legal Topics
- Beddoe Application, Recusal, Adjournment, Directions to Trustee
- 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
Hillhead Limited
Plaintiff
Sean Eric McLean Hotung
1st Defendant
Eric Edward Hotung
2nd Defendant
Mara Tegwen Hotung Lamb
3rd Defendant
Sheridan Patricia Hotung Shea
4th Defendant
Gabrielle Marie Hotung
5th Defendant
Patricia Ann Hotung
6th Defendant
Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung
7th Defendant
Michael Eric Hotung
8th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Beddoe Application (order 85 R.2(1), Rules of the High Court, Cap.4) / Interlocutory — Adjournment to Another Judge
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge seized with the substantive proceedings should hear the trustee's Beddoe application
- 2 Whether the Beddoe application should be adjourned to another judge to avoid disclosure of trustee's advice and views
- 3 Whether common parties between Beddoe and substantive proceedings requires disclosure to the judge seized with the substantive matter
Ratio Decidendi
It is inappropriate for the judge seized with the substantive proceedings to hear the trustee's Beddoe application; the Beddoe application must be adjourned to and heard by another judge to preserve impartiality and prevent disclosure of the trustee's legal advice.
Court Disposition
Application adjourned to another judge for hearing; three hours to be reserved and an early hearing date to be fixed.
Orders
- Adjourn the application to another judge to a date to be fixed with three hours reserved and an early hearing date to be given.
- No order as to costs of the hearing today.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj HCMP 5250/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 5250 OF 2002 ____________ IN THE MATTER of Order 85 rule 2(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4 ____________ BETWEEN HILLHEAD LIMITED Plaintiff and SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG 1st Defendant ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG 2nd Defendant MARA TEGWEN HOTUNG LAMB 3rd Defendant SHERIDAN PATRICIA HOTUNG SHEA 4th Defendant GABRIELLE MARIE HOTUNG 5th Defendant PATRICIA ANN HOTUNG 6th Defendant ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG 7th Defendant MICHAEL ERIC HOTUNG 8th Defendant _____________ Before: Hon Kwan J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 15 January 2003 Date of Decision: 15 January 2003 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ 1. I have before me a Beddoe application taken out by the trustee, Hillhead Limited, against various defendants, some of whom are beneficiaries in the trust. The originating summons for the application was issued on 18 December 2002 by the trustee. This was the day after I had adjourned proceedings in HCMP No. 4511 of 2002 ( HCMP 4511 ). 2. In the latter proceedings, the trustee is the defendant and the application made to me on 17 December 2002 was that I should adjourn the hearing of HCMP 4511 to another date to enable the trustee to take out a Beddoe application seeking a direction from the Court whether to contest the proceedings in HCMP 4511. I granted an adjournment on that basis. 3. The originating summons in the Beddoe application came before Waung J on 6 January 2003. At that hearing, Waung J adjourned the application to me on 15 January 2003, that is today, to be heard at the same time as the adjourned hearing of HCMP 4511. 4. It is the usual practice in a Beddoe application that the judge who is concerned with the substantive litigation or the proposed substantive litigation should not be involved in any way in the Beddoe application, because it would be inappropriate to reveal to the judge eventually seized with the matter the views of the trustee on the strength and weakness of his case and what legal advice he has received. 5. As in any Beddoe application, the beneficiaries to the trust are made parties to that application. As I have indicated to counsel at the outset, the fact that there are common parties in the Beddoe application and in the substantive litigation does not mean that the Court should be told or kept informed of the Beddoe application, the merits and legal advice that the trustee might have received on the substantive litigation. 6. I see no reason why the present proceedings should warrant a departure from the normal practice. I understand from Mr Anderson Chow who appeared for the trustee that the trustee s stance is that as the judge seized with HCMP 4511, I should not be hearing the Beddoe application. The same stance is taken by Mr Herbert Tsoi who appears for the 2nd defendant, Mr Eric Edward Hotung, in the Beddoe application. 7. For the reasons given above, I do not think I should be concerned in any way with HCMP No. 5250 of 2002 and the Beddoe application should be heard by another judge. I should say for the purpose of record that I have refrained from reading the papers in these proceedings other than the originating summons, the amended originating summons and the order made by Waung J on 6 January 2003. I do not consider myself to have been conflicted out of dealing with HCMP 4511. 8. I order that the application in these proceedings is to be adjourned to another judge to a date to be fixed with three hours reserved and that an early hearing date is to be given. 9. I make no order as to costs of the hearing today. (S Kwan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Anderson Chow, instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons, for the Plaintiff Mr Russell Coleman, instructed by Messrs Stevenson, Wong & Co., for the 1st, 4th and 5th Defendants Mr Herbert Tsoi of Messrs Herbert Tsoi & Partners, for the 2nd Defendant The 7th Defendant, appearing in person The 3rd, 6th and 8th Defendants, absent 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 1udk 1udk i$&`G rLy.E user ABC Paper05.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8