STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TUENBO CO LTD AND OTHERS

STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TUENBO CO LTD AND OTHERS

The court refused to stay the time for filing and service of the defence because it was necessary to determine whether other substantive defences exist and whether those defences are so intertwined with the authority issue that a preliminary trial would not materially differ from a full trial; instead the court ordered limited affidavit exchange, adjourned both summonses for substantive hearing to be heard together, and extended time to file the defence to 28 days.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2742
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 2095/2016): STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca 2095/2016): TUENBO COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (hca 2095/2016): CHEUNG SUNG LAM; 3rd Defendant (hca 2095/2016): WONG SUNG KING DOROTHY; 4th Defendant (hca 2095/2016): TUENBO (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED; 5th Defendant (hca 2095/2016): CHEUNG WAI KWAN; 6th Defendant (hca 2095/2016): IDEAL WIN COMPANY LIMITED; 7th Defendant (hca 2095/2016): CHEUNG KA MING; Plaintiff (hca 566/2019): TUENBO COMPANY LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca 566/2019): CHEUNG SUNG LAM; 2nd Defendant (hca 566/2019): WONG SUNG KING DOROTHY; 3rd Defendant (hca 566/2019): CHEUNG KA MING; 4th Defendant (hca 566/2019): UTAHLOY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 July 2021
Case Number
HCA2095/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Actions (hca 2095/2016 & HCA 566/2019) — Contested Summonses Concerning Preliminary Trial of Authority and Stay/filing of Defence / Directions Hearing and Interlocutory Decision; Summonses Adjourned for Substantive Argument; Extension of Time Ordered (decision Dated 21 July 2021)
Outcome
Application for stay of time to file defence refused. Court gave directions for affidavit exchange, adjourned both summonses for substantive argument to be heard together and extended time to file and serve the defence for the 2019 action to 28 days.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Trial, Issue of Authority, Stay of Proceedings, Extension of Time to File Defence, Court Directions and Affidavits
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Civil Litigation Preliminary Trial Issue of Authority Stay of Proceedings Extension of Time to File Defence Court Directions and Affidavits

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Plaintiff (hca 2095/2016)

TUENBO COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca 2095/2016)

CHEUNG SUNG LAM

2nd Defendant (hca 2095/2016)

WONG SUNG KING DOROTHY

3rd Defendant (hca 2095/2016)

TUENBO (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED

4th Defendant (hca 2095/2016)

CHEUNG WAI KWAN

5th Defendant (hca 2095/2016)

IDEAL WIN COMPANY LIMITED

6th Defendant (hca 2095/2016)

CHEUNG KA MING

7th Defendant (hca 2095/2016)

TUENBO COMPANY LIMITED

Plaintiff (hca 566/2019)

CHEUNG SUNG LAM

1st Defendant (hca 566/2019)

WONG SUNG KING DOROTHY

2nd Defendant (hca 566/2019)

CHEUNG KA MING

3rd Defendant (hca 566/2019)

UTAHLOY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED

4th Defendant (hca 566/2019)

Procedural Posture

Civil Actions (hca 2095/2016 & HCA 566/2019) — Contested Summonses Concerning Preliminary Trial of Authority and Stay/filing of Defence / Directions Hearing and Interlocutory Decision; Summonses Adjourned for Substantive Argument; Extension of Time Ordered (decision Dated 21 July 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant in HCA 566/2019 was entitled to a stay of time for filing and service of the defence until determination of the 2019 summons
  2. 2 Whether the issue of authority should be tried preliminarily or whether other substantive defences exist or are so intertwined that a preliminary trial would not materially differ from a full trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to stay the time for filing and service of the defence because it was necessary to determine whether other substantive defences exist and whether those defences are so intertwined with the authority issue that a preliminary trial would not materially differ from a full trial; instead the court ordered limited affidavit exchange, adjourned both summonses for substantive hearing to be heard together, and extended time to file the defence to 28 days.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of time to file defence refused. Court gave directions for affidavit exchange, adjourned both summonses for substantive argument to be heard together and extended time to file and serve the defence for the 2019 action to 28 days.

Orders

  • Leave to plaintiff in HCA 2095/2016 to file and serve affidavit in opposition to the 2016 summons within 28 days of the order
  • Leave to 2nd to 4th and 6th to 7th defendants in HCA 2095/2016 to file and serve affidavits in reply, if any, within 28 days thereafter