KAM HUNG WAN WINNIE v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
The court refused the solicitors' applications for a separate preliminary trial and refused stays because splitting the trial was not just and convenient: it would cause delay, increased costs, risk prejudice to fair trial (faded memories, lost witnesses), duplicative appeals and stress to parties. The court allowed the developer's strike-out application against the purchasers (pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action) and directed a further directions hearing and costs to be dealt with at that hearing.
- Citation
- KAM HUNG WAN WINNIE v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
- Parties
- Vendor/developer; Plaintiff and 1st Defendant in Various Actions: Tin Shui Wai Development Limited; Solicitors; 2nd Defendant/third Party in Various Actions: Baker & McKenzie; Solicitors; 2nd Defendant/third Party in Various Actions: Stikeman Elliott; Purchaser/plaintiff (hca 4610): Lau Chung Fai; Purchaser/plaintiff (hca 4610): Lam Man Yee; Purchaser/plaintiff (hca 1887): Cheng Chi Lung
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 4 July 2006
- Case Number
- HCA4655/2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Contract and Professional Negligence / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications (preliminary Issue, Stay, Strike Out); Directions Hearing Pending
- Outcome
- Applications for trial of preliminary issue in HCA 4610 and HCA 4737 refused; applications for stay in the other listed actions dismissed; developer's (TSW) strike-out application allowed (subject to appeal); directions hearing adjourned and costs reserved to that hearing.
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Issue, Stay of Proceedings, Strike Out, Rescission, Completion of Development, Solicitor Duty of Care, Case Management
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tin Shui Wai Development Limited
Vendor/developer; Plaintiff and 1st Defendant in Various Actions
Baker & McKenzie
Solicitors; 2nd Defendant/third Party in Various Actions
Stikeman Elliott
Solicitors; 2nd Defendant/third Party in Various Actions
Lau Chung Fai
Purchaser/plaintiff (hca 4610)
Lam Man Yee
Purchaser/plaintiff (hca 4610)
Cheng Chi Lung
Purchaser/plaintiff (hca 1887)
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract and Professional Negligence / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications (preliminary Issue, Stay, Strike Out); Directions Hearing Pending
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Development was complete as at 31 December 1997 for the purposes of clause 4(1)(c) of the Sale and Purchase Agreement
- 2 Whether a right of rescission under clause 4(4)(a) accrued to purchasers on 1 January 1998
- 3 Whether the solicitors owed and breached duties of care to advise and protect the purchasers' right of rescission
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused the solicitors' applications for a separate preliminary trial and refused stays because splitting the trial was not just and convenient: it would cause delay, increased costs, risk prejudice to fair trial (faded memories, lost witnesses), duplicative appeals and stress to parties. The court allowed the developer's strike-out application against the purchasers (pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action) and directed a further directions hearing and costs to be dealt with at that hearing.
Court Disposition
Applications for trial of preliminary issue in HCA 4610 and HCA 4737 refused; applications for stay in the other listed actions dismissed; developer's (TSW) strike-out application allowed (subject to appeal); directions hearing adjourned and costs reserved to that hearing.
Orders
- Application for trial of the preliminary issue in HCA 4610 and HCA 4737 refused
- Applications for stay of the other listed proceedings dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment