CHAN YAN PING BERNADETTE AND ANOTHER v. MIDAS PRINTING LTD

CHAN YAN PING BERNADETTE AND ANOTHER v. MIDAS PRINTING LTD

The court refused to dismiss the Miscellaneous Proceedings because D4 and D7 have a real and contested stake in the subject money; dismissal would not determine their entitlement and would merely force them to commence fresh proceedings raising the same issues. The undertaking disposing of the Labour Tribunal appeal benefited only the Labour Tribunal claimants (D1 and D2) and does not affect other defendants. Therefore the discretionary remedy of dismissal was not appropriate; instead the plaintiff must proceed and those defendants should seek directions to progress to trial if they wish to pursue their claims.

Citation
CHAN YAN PING BERNADETTE AND ANOTHER v. MIDAS PRINTING LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: MIDAS PRINTING GROUP LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CHAN YAN PING BERNADETTE; 2nd Defendant: LAM TAN CHING SHIRLEY; 3rd Defendant: LAU CHUK KIN; 4th Defendant: TSOI CHIT SHUN ROGER; 5th Defendant: KAN YIN PING GLORIA; 6th Defendant: CHAN YIU WOON BERNARD; 7th Defendant: LAM MEI LAN IDY; 8th Defendant: LEE WING KWAN ANGELA; 9th Defendant: CHOW SO CHU RITA; 10th Defendant: YEUNG CHI KEUNG EDDIE; 11th Defendant: CHAN CHIN WAH EDWARD; 12th Defendant: CHAN KIM MAN RAYMOND; 13th Defendant: CHEUNG NING; 14th Defendant: CHEUNG WAI TAK PHILLIPS; 15th Defendant: FUNG HON HUNG FRANK; 16th Defendant: HO CHUN WING JACK; 17th Defendant: JIANG LICHANG; 18th Defendant: LAM WAI MAN RAYMOND; 19th Defendant: PANG TAK HUNG; 20th Defendant / Appellant (hcla 95/2001): MIDAS PRINTING LIMITED; 21st Defendant: MIDAS PRINTING GROUP (BVI) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 January 2008
Case Number
HCLA95/2001
Procedural Posture
HCMP 1719/2002 (miscellaneous Proceedings) and HCLA 95/2001 (labour Tribunal Appeal) / Judgment on Applications to Dismiss (heard in Chambers)
Outcome
Application by D4 and D7 to dismiss HCMP 1719/2002 refused; Labour Tribunal appeal HCLA 95/2001 dismissed by consent.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Dismissal for Delay, Undertakings, Release of Funds Paid Into Court, Interest and Execution Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Labour Law Civil Litigation Enforcement Abuse of Process Dismissal for Delay Undertakings Release of Funds Paid Into Court +1 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

MIDAS PRINTING GROUP LIMITED

Plaintiff

CHAN YAN PING BERNADETTE

1st Defendant

LAM TAN CHING SHIRLEY

2nd Defendant

LAU CHUK KIN

3rd Defendant

TSOI CHIT SHUN ROGER

4th Defendant

KAN YIN PING GLORIA

5th Defendant

CHAN YIU WOON BERNARD

6th Defendant

LAM MEI LAN IDY

7th Defendant

LEE WING KWAN ANGELA

8th Defendant

CHOW SO CHU RITA

9th Defendant

YEUNG CHI KEUNG EDDIE

10th Defendant

CHAN CHIN WAH EDWARD

11th Defendant

CHAN KIM MAN RAYMOND

12th Defendant

CHEUNG NING

13th Defendant

CHEUNG WAI TAK PHILLIPS

14th Defendant

FUNG HON HUNG FRANK

15th Defendant

HO CHUN WING JACK

16th Defendant

JIANG LICHANG

17th Defendant

LAM WAI MAN RAYMOND

18th Defendant

PANG TAK HUNG

19th Defendant

MIDAS PRINTING LIMITED

20th Defendant / Appellant (hcla 95/2001)

MIDAS PRINTING GROUP (BVI) LIMITED

21st Defendant

Procedural Posture

HCMP 1719/2002 (miscellaneous Proceedings) and HCLA 95/2001 (labour Tribunal Appeal) / Judgment on Applications to Dismiss (heard in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Miscellaneous Proceedings should be dismissed for abuse of process and inordinate delay
  2. 2 Whether the undertaking and agreement disposing of the Labour Tribunal appeal affects other defendants' rights in the Miscellaneous Proceedings
  3. 3 Whether funds paid into court should be released to Labour Tribunal awardees and how any interest shortfall should be dealt with

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to dismiss the Miscellaneous Proceedings because D4 and D7 have a real and contested stake in the subject money; dismissal would not determine their entitlement and would merely force them to commence fresh proceedings raising the same issues. The undertaking disposing of the Labour Tribunal appeal benefited only the Labour Tribunal claimants (D1 and D2) and does not affect other defendants. Therefore the discretionary remedy of dismissal was not appropriate; instead the plaintiff must proceed and those defendants should seek directions to progress to trial if they wish to pursue their claims.

Court Disposition

Application by D4 and D7 to dismiss HCMP 1719/2002 refused; Labour Tribunal appeal HCLA 95/2001 dismissed by consent.

Orders

  • HCLA 95/2001 dismissed by consent
  • Funds paid into court to be released to the successful Labour Tribunal claimants pursuant to their awards together with interest accrued