& L GATES v. MELCO CROWN GAMING (MACAU) LTD

& L GATES v. MELCO CROWN GAMING (MACAU) LTD

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds merely rehashed arguments rejected in the interlocutory decision and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or a palpable error of law; consequently the stay was dismissed. On costs, the court held the Casino Defendants substantially succeeded on the main discovery issues and it was appropriate for K&L Gates to bear 80% of the Casino Defendants' discovery costs; refusals of summary taxation and immediate payment were justified to avoid additional court workload and to focus on progressing the underlying litigation.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 200
Parties
Plaintiff: K&L GATES; 1st Defendant: NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL; 2nd Defendant: SAT IENG SOCIEDADE UNIPESSOAL LIMITADA; 3rd Defendant: GOLDEN WAY GLOBAL LIMITED; 4th Defendant: SOUTHBANK INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED; 5th Defendant: SAT FAT LIMITED (also known as SAT FAT SOCIEDADA UNIPESSOAL LIMITADA); 6th Defendant: EVER DISCOVERY LIMITED; 7th Defendant: BURSWOOD NOMINEES LIMITED; 8th Defendant: GOLDEN FUTURE (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) LIMITED; 9th Defendant: VENETIAN MACAU LIMITED; 10th Defendant: WYNN INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, LIMITED; 11th Defendant: V-HK SERVICES LIMITED; 12th Defendant: GOLDEN WAY COMPANY LIMITED (also known as GOLDEN WAY SOCIEDADE UNIPESSOAL LIMITADA); 13th Defendant: CROWN MELBOURNE LIMITED; 14th Defendant: WYNN RESORTS (MACAU) S.A.; Defendant in HCA 349/2012: MELCO CROWN GAMING (MACAU) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 January 2019
Case Number
HCA349/2012
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Actions (commercial/fraud Litigation) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution of Interlocutory Discovery Order; Decision on Costs Variation Applications
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; stay of execution of the discovery order dismissed; costs order nisi of 27 November 2017 made absolute as varied; certain variations to costs orders granted; refusal to order summary taxation or immediate payment of costs.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Costs Variation, Case Management, Duplication of Counsel
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Discovery Costs Appeal Commercial Litigation Fraud Specific Discovery Leave to Appeal +4 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K&L GATES

Plaintiff

NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL

1st Defendant

SAT IENG SOCIEDADE UNIPESSOAL LIMITADA

2nd Defendant

GOLDEN WAY GLOBAL LIMITED

3rd Defendant

SOUTHBANK INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

4th Defendant

SAT FAT LIMITED (also known as SAT FAT SOCIEDADA UNIPESSOAL LIMITADA)

5th Defendant

EVER DISCOVERY LIMITED

6th Defendant

BURSWOOD NOMINEES LIMITED

7th Defendant

GOLDEN FUTURE (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) LIMITED

8th Defendant

VENETIAN MACAU LIMITED

9th Defendant

WYNN INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, LIMITED

10th Defendant

V-HK SERVICES LIMITED

11th Defendant

GOLDEN WAY COMPANY LIMITED (also known as GOLDEN WAY SOCIEDADE UNIPESSOAL LIMITADA)

12th Defendant

CROWN MELBOURNE LIMITED

13th Defendant

WYNN RESORTS (MACAU) S.A.

14th Defendant

MELCO CROWN GAMING (MACAU) LIMITED

Defendant in HCA 349/2012

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Actions (commercial/fraud Litigation) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution of Interlocutory Discovery Order; Decision on Costs Variation Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the interlocutory discovery order
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution of the discovery order should be granted pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether the discovery order involved any palpable legal error warranting appellate intervention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds merely rehashed arguments rejected in the interlocutory decision and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or a palpable error of law; consequently the stay was dismissed. On costs, the court held the Casino Defendants substantially succeeded on the main discovery issues and it was appropriate for K&L Gates to bear 80% of the Casino Defendants' discovery costs; refusals of summary taxation and immediate payment were justified to avoid additional court workload and to focus on progressing the underlying litigation.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; stay of execution of the discovery order dismissed; costs order nisi of 27 November 2017 made absolute as varied; certain variations to costs orders granted; refusal to order summary taxation or immediate payment of costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Stay of execution dismissed