PERFORMANCE PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. YIP KIM PO AND OTHERS

PERFORMANCE PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. YIP KIM PO AND OTHERS

Application for a split trial dismissed because there was no clear demarcation between liability and quantum—financial evidence relating to KSL was relevant to liability and credibility, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate concrete savings in time or costs and had contributed to delay by not pursuing discovery; therefore the exceptional test for a split trial was not met.

Citation
PERFORMANCE PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. YIP KIM PO AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Performance Properties Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Cheng Yan Tak Angus Ronald; 1st Defendant: Yip Kim Po; 2nd Defendant: Rochester Securities Limited; 3rd Defendant: Cheung Anthony Quintin; 4th Defendant: New China Management Limited; 5th Defendant: Global Credit Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2003
Case Number
HCA1709/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Breach of Joint Venture Agreement / Application for Split Trial on Liability and Quantum (decision in Chambers)
Outcome
plaintiffs' summons for split trial dismissed
Legal Topics
Split Trial, Liability Vs Quantum, Discovery, Breach of Joint Venture Agreement, Termination, Damages for Loss of Opportunity, Account and Inquiry
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Remedies Evidence Company Law Split Trial Liability Vs Quantum Discovery +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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Performance Properties Limited

1st Plaintiff

Cheng Yan Tak Angus Ronald

2nd Plaintiff

Yip Kim Po

1st Defendant

Rochester Securities Limited

2nd Defendant

Cheung Anthony Quintin

3rd Defendant

New China Management Limited

4th Defendant

Global Credit Holdings Limited

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Breach of Joint Venture Agreement / Application for Split Trial on Liability and Quantum (decision in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a split trial on liability and quantum should be ordered under Order 33 rule 4(2)
  2. 2 Whether there is a clear demarcation between issues of liability and quantum in this case
  3. 3 Whether a split trial would produce substantial saving of time and costs

Ratio Decidendi

Application for a split trial dismissed because there was no clear demarcation between liability and quantum—financial evidence relating to KSL was relevant to liability and credibility, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate concrete savings in time or costs and had contributed to delay by not pursuing discovery; therefore the exceptional test for a split trial was not met.

Court Disposition

plaintiffs' summons for split trial dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiffs\' summons is dismissed.
  • The costs of the summons, including the costs of the appearance before Master Lung and today, will be to the 1st and 2nd defendants against the plaintiffs in any event, to be taxed if not agreed.