HONG KIN KAU v. PERFECT PROMOTIONS CO AND OTHERS

HONG KIN KAU v. PERFECT PROMOTIONS CO AND OTHERS

The court exercised case management rather than strike out: the 2nd Defendant was permitted to withdraw the summonses, costs of those summonses were reserved, and the action was adjourned for pre-trial and a full trial because the parties agreed to proceed; the court emphasised that the proper remedy between partners is an account and used its powers to fix trial dates and procedural directions instead of granting dismissal for want of prosecution.

Citation
HONG KIN KAU v. PERFECT PROMOTIONS CO AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Hong Kin Kau; 1st Defendant: Perfect Promotions Co.; 2nd Defendant: Tsang Kwok Wai; 3rd Defendant: Hong Kin Kau
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2008
Case Number
DCCJ2227/1998
Procedural Posture
Partnership Dispute / Civil Action / Pre Trial Case Management (summons to Dismiss Withdrawn; Trial Fixed)
Outcome
Summons to dismiss withdrawn by 2nd Defendant; matter adjourned to pre-trial and trial dates; costs of the withdrawn summonses reserved.
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Partnership, Accounting Between Partners, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Set Off
Source Language
EN
Partnership Law Civil Procedure Equity Dissolution of Partnership Accounting Between Partners Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Case Management Set Off

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Kin Kau

Plaintiff

Perfect Promotions Co.

1st Defendant

Tsang Kwok Wai

2nd Defendant

Hong Kin Kau

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Partnership Dispute / Civil Action / Pre Trial Case Management (summons to Dismiss Withdrawn; Trial Fixed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's counterclaim should also be dismissed if the plaintiff's claim is dismissed
  3. 3 Whether an account of the partnership must be taken between the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised case management rather than strike out: the 2nd Defendant was permitted to withdraw the summonses, costs of those summonses were reserved, and the action was adjourned for pre-trial and a full trial because the parties agreed to proceed; the court emphasised that the proper remedy between partners is an account and used its powers to fix trial dates and procedural directions instead of granting dismissal for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Summons to dismiss withdrawn by 2nd Defendant; matter adjourned to pre-trial and trial dates; costs of the withdrawn summonses reserved.

Orders

  • 2nd Defendant granted leave to withdraw the inter parte summons and another inter parte summons dated 28 October 2008
  • Costs of the two summonses reserved