YEUNG SIU YUNG v. FAN PUI WAN, MARGARET AND OTHERS

YEUNG SIU YUNG v. FAN PUI WAN, MARGARET AND OTHERS

The court applied the established principle that defendants must show on the facts that a stay is necessary to prevent real injustice to concurrent criminal proceedings; there is no right to an automatic stay and the court will refuse a stay absent demonstration of a real danger of prejudice to the criminal process.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1598
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: 1st Defendant; Defendant: 4th Defendant; 7th Defendant: N LIMITED; 8th Defendant: FRANCIS JOSEPH CARUSO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 July 2019
Case Number
HCA1211/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (investment/claims Arising From Alleged Fraudulent Private Placement) / Appeal (decision in Chambers)
Outcome
Stay of the civil proceedings refused; appeal against grant of leave to continue civil proceedings dismissed in respect of the stay application
Legal Topics
Private Placement, Misrepresentation/inducement to Invest, Stay of Civil Proceedings, Right to Silence, Risk of Prejudice to Criminal Trial
Source Language
en
Civil Law Commercial Law Fraud Criminal Procedure (concurrent Criminal Proceedings) Private Placement Misrepresentation/inducement to Invest Stay of Civil Proceedings Right to Silence +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

Defendant

4th Defendant

Defendant

N LIMITED

7th Defendant

FRANCIS JOSEPH CARUSO

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (investment/claims Arising From Alleged Fraudulent Private Placement) / Appeal (decision in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the civil proceedings should be stayed because of concurrent criminal prosecution
  2. 2 Whether disclosure in civil proceedings would cause real danger of miscarriage of justice in the criminal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the defendants discharged the burden to justify a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied the established principle that defendants must show on the facts that a stay is necessary to prevent real injustice to concurrent criminal proceedings; there is no right to an automatic stay and the court will refuse a stay absent demonstration of a real danger of prejudice to the criminal process.

Court Disposition

Stay of the civil proceedings refused; appeal against grant of leave to continue civil proceedings dismissed in respect of the stay application

Orders

  • Stay of civil proceedings refused; civil proceedings to continue
  • No automatic stay granted; defendants failed to discharge burden to justify a stay