Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case management and consolidation

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2024

香港平民屋宇有限公司對關翠華

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1390
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5514/2023

The application by the plaintiff to resume and press on with the District Court proceedings was refused because the defendants raised substantial and arguable public law issues and the multiplicity and similarity of claims meant unilateral continuation would undermine the objectives of Cap.336H Order 1A (case management, proportionality and fairness). The proper course is to retain the stay and pursue coordinated case management including consideration of judicial review, representative/test cases or consolidation, rather than allow the plaintiff to pursue piecemeal summary or default procedu…
22 Jun 2021

NG IM FONG LORETTA THE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LUI KWAN CHEUNG, DECEASED v. RAYMOND CHAN, KENNETH YUEN & CO., SOLICITORS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1787
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1115/2019

The court exercised its discretion and dismissed the stay applications: lodgement of a grant does not automatically suspend an executrix’ standing to continue proceedings and, on the facts, the Probate Action was not shown to be dispositive of the Share and Property Actions; defendants had failed to progress the Probate Action and delay would unfairly prejudice the executrix and the estate (elderly key witness, early stage of actions). Consequently, the stay of the Share Action and Property Action was refused and the APL (administratrix pendente lite) applications were adjourned sine die with…
21 Nov 2019

朱鳳娟對朱有榮及另五人

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP798/2017

The court exercised its case management powers to grant limited extensions for unrepresented respondents to file defences, to consolidate and manage HCMP and related HCA matters together because of overlapping factual issues, and to order and timetable mediation with specified document production and reporting requirements so as to progress the disputes efficiently.
21 Nov 2019

朱鳳娟對朱有榮及另五人

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP797/2017

The court exercised its case management powers to allow limited extensions for unrepresented respondents, to coordinate HCMP and related HCA proceedings for efficiency, to mandate mediation with specified disclosure and deadlines, and to allocate preparatory costs to the HCMP file because the matters are interrelated and require coordinated management.
28 Mar 2019

WONG YUNG TAI v. TOP EAGLE SECURITY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 408
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI126/2013

The court refused to award indemnity costs for the entire action but found the plaintiff consciously concealed her resumption of work from March 2017 onwards, conduct sufficiently serious to take the case out of the norm; accordingly the plaintiff must pay the 2nd defendant's costs on a party‑and‑party basis up to 1 March 2017 and on an indemnity basis from 1 March 2017 to discontinuance, and must pay the 2nd defendant's costs of the contribution and indemnity proceedings on a party‑and‑party basis.
7 Jul 2011

CHUI PUI KUN v. CHUI WAI KWAN

Citation

CHUI PUI KUN v. CHUI WAI KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2339/2009

The court allowed the Amendment Application to re-amend the petition (with consequential directions for filing evidence) because opposition was not pressed and the court accepts limited exceptions to a strict bar on post-petition amendments; the court refused CWK's application to defer or consolidate the Defamation Action with the petitions because the issues for jury and judge were materially different, the Defamation Action was trial-ready while the petitions were not, and it would be inappropriate to deprive a party of its jury trial rights or to risk confusing the jury by reliance on judg…
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA118/2007

Section 11A requires a two‑stage review process and, absent clear statutory authority or exceptional circumstances, the respondent is entitled to be heard at the first stage; the applicant's new factual assertions (possible refunds from WACC increase and a new 2008 appeal) were not cogent or overriding reasons to revisit the Tribunal's 3 November case management decision to select a single test appeal, therefore the application for review was refused and the original case management order upheld.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA543/1999

The application for review is refused: section 11A requires a two‑stage process and parties are prima facie entitled to be heard at the first stage; the applicant's new factual arguments (refund prospects from WACC change and a new 2008 appeal) do not constitute sufficiently cogent reasons to overturn the prior case management decision to select a single test appeal and keep other appeals stayed.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA116/2007

The application for review was refused. The Tribunal held that the first-stage decision under s11A is a judicial decision which prima facie requires the respondent to be heard (not an ex parte process), and that the applicant failed to demonstrate cogent and overriding reasons (the prospect of refunds or a new 2008 appeal) to re-open and overturn the earlier case management decision of 3 November to proceed by a single test appeal and to keep the other appeals stayed.
3 Dec 2008

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDGA153/2006

The application for review was refused because (1) section 11A establishes a two-stage review and the first-stage decision must ordinarily afford the respondent an opportunity to be heard; (2) the applicant's newly raised factors (possible refunds from WACC changes and a new 2008 appeal) did not constitute cogent or overriding reasons to revisit the Tribunal's prior case management decision of 3 November 2008 selecting a single test appeal; and (3) procedural fairness and existing alternative remedies (including pending High Court proceedings) meant the stays and test-appeal procedure should…