YU QUAN LI AND ANOTHER v. SUEN KIN WING

YU QUAN LI AND ANOTHER v. SUEN KIN WING

The court found that the two actions involve fundamental common factual issues arising from the same alleged Fraudulent Scheme (whether the plaintiffs were victims and the Misappropriated Sum was taken). The advantages of trying the actions together (avoiding inconsistent findings, saving time and costs, and avoiding duplicative evidence) outweigh the limited delay to HCA1671. Exercising its discretion under Order 4 r 9(1), the court ordered HCA1671 and HCA2975 to be tried together before the same judge and gave directions for mutual admissibility of evidence and case sequencing.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1364
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Yu Quan Li; 2nd Plaintiff: Lou Xiao Jie; Defendant (hca1671/2018): Suen Kin Wing; Defendant (hca2975/2018) / Proposed Interested Party (hca1671/2018): UBS AG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 May 2022
Case Number
HCA1671/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation (fraud/misappropriation; Contract; Tort; Equity) / Pre Trial Case Management; Summons for Consolidation Under Order 4 Rule 9(1)
Outcome
Summons granted: HCA1671 and HCA2975 to be tried together before the same judge; costs order nisi in favour of UBS for the summonses (costs in the cause, certificate for one counsel).
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Fraud, Misappropriation, Case Management, Consolidation, Negligence, Restoration/unjust Enrichment
Source Language
EN
Civil Litigation Banking Tort Contract Equity Vicarious Liability Fraud Misappropriation +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yu Quan Li

1st Plaintiff

Lou Xiao Jie

2nd Plaintiff

Suen Kin Wing

Defendant (hca1671/2018)

UBS AG

Defendant (hca2975/2018) / Proposed Interested Party (hca1671/2018)

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation (fraud/misappropriation; Contract; Tort; Equity) / Pre Trial Case Management; Summons for Consolidation Under Order 4 Rule 9(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether common questions of fact or law arise between HCA1671 and HCA2975 such that they should be tried together under Order 4 r 9(1)
  2. 2 Whether trying the two actions together would cause unacceptable delay or prejudice to the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether mutual admissibility of evidence and single consolidated trial would reduce risk of inconsistent findings and save time and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the two actions involve fundamental common factual issues arising from the same alleged Fraudulent Scheme (whether the plaintiffs were victims and the Misappropriated Sum was taken). The advantages of trying the actions together (avoiding inconsistent findings, saving time and costs, and avoiding duplicative evidence) outweigh the limited delay to HCA1671. Exercising its discretion under Order 4 r 9(1), the court ordered HCA1671 and HCA2975 to be tried together before the same judge and gave directions for mutual admissibility of evidence and case sequencing.

Court Disposition

Summons granted: HCA1671 and HCA2975 to be tried together before the same judge; costs order nisi in favour of UBS for the summonses (costs in the cause, certificate for one counsel).

Orders

  • HCA1671 and HCA2975 be tried together before the same judge
  • The plaintiffs in both actions shall give the defendant in HCA1671 full access to the pleadings, court orders, disclosed documents and witness statements in HCA2975 within 14 days hereof