Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consent scheme

Legal area

Court

4 Jul 2006

YAU CHUNG FAT JEFREY v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YAU CHUNG FAT JEFREY v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4614/2003

The court refused the solicitor defendants' applications for trial of the preliminary issue in HCA 4610 and HCA 4737 and dismissed the applications to stay the other related proceedings because splitting the trial would not be just and convenient: the time estimates, need for common evidence and discovery, risk of escalated costs, delay, appeals and prejudice to fair trial outweighed any convenience. The court also allowed TSW's strike-out application against the plaintiffs' claims on the basis they disclosed no reasonable cause of action (subject to appeal). Directions and costs issues were…
4 Jul 2006

FUNG SUK YIN FLORENCE v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

FUNG SUK YIN FLORENCE v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4664/2003

The court refused the solicitors' applications for a separate preliminary trial and refused the related stay applications because the remaining factual and credibility issues (state of completion and alleged negligent advice) ought to be tried together: splitting would cause delay, increased costs, duplicative litigation and risk of injustice (witness availability and faded memory), and any decision would remain subject to appeal causing further delay; accordingly the appropriate course was to proceed to directions for a single trial timetable.
4 Jul 2006

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LIU CHUNG FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LIU CHUNG FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA352/2004

The court refused the applications for trial of the preliminary issue and dismissed the applications for stays because, on the facts, there was no sufficient justification for a split trial: the completion issue and negligence issues involved overlapping factual inquiries requiring witness evidence and discovery, a split trial would likely increase delay and costs and risk unfairness (lost evidence, faded memories), and thus it was not just and convenient to try the preliminary issue separately.
4 Jul 2006

CHU LING CHUN v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHU LING CHUN v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4607/2003

The court refused the solicitors' applications for trial of the preliminary issue and dismissed the applications for stays because a split trial would not be just and convenient: it would multiply proceedings, increase delay and costs, risk injustice from faded memories and lost witnesses, and the related negligence and factual issues were intertwined and should be resolved together; consequently the applications were refused and the other actions not stayed.
4 Jul 2006

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WAH HOK MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WAH HOK MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1048/2004

The court refused the solicitors' applications for a preliminary split trial and refused stays of the other proceedings because the factual disputes and likely discovery and witness evidence made a split trial neither just nor convenient; split trials would increase delay, escalate costs and risk prejudice to fair trial. The strike-out application against the plaintiffs' claims versus the developer was allowed (subject to appeal) and directions including costs were adjourned.
4 Jul 2006

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FU KA TSANG

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FU KA TSANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1482/2003

The court refused the solicitors' applications to order a preliminary issue trial and refused stays of other proceedings because a split trial was not just and convenient: the factual and documentary issues overlap, trial would produce delay, duplication and increased costs, raise appeal and fairness risks, and plaintiffs would be prejudiced; accordingly all issues should proceed together and the directions hearing is adjourned.
4 Jul 2006

LAM WAI SUM LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM WAI SUM LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4738/2003

The applications for trial of a preliminary issue in HCA 4610 and 4737 were refused and the applications for stays in the related actions were dismissed because a split trial was not just and convenient: the factual and documentary issues substantially overlapped, trial time estimates were similar, split trials would likely increase delay, costs and risk prejudicing a fair trial (including by appeals), and there was no sufficient efficiency or justice rationale to depart from the general rule of single trial.
4 Jul 2006

TO SAU HEUNG v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TO SAU HEUNG v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4677/2003

The applications for separate trial of the preliminary issue and for stays were refused because it would not be just and convenient to split the trial given likely delay, escalation of costs, risk of repeated appeals, prejudice to plaintiffs and the existence of intertwined factual issues that should be tried together; directions and costs to be dealt with at a directions hearing.