Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joinder of third parties

Legal area

Court

22 May 2023

GF v. CR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKFC 97
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11732/2020

Given the factual indicia of transfers of shares to R2 around 2008-2009, the allegation that R2 is a nominee for H, the Hong Kong registration of holding companies and the potential substantive effect on the quantum of ancillary relief (including enforcement), it was necessary and just and convenient to join R2-R4 so that all issues of ownership, transfers and the validity of the prenuptial agreement can be effectively adjudicated and enforcement facilitated.
22 Apr 2021

CHAN CHUN HANG v. CAO MING NAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 470
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2655/2013

Default judgment was refused because the factual issues overlap between defaulting and non-defaulting defendants, an injunction ordering removal of structures would affect others and third party occupants who have not been notified might seek to join; the court therefore exercised its discretion to stand the summons over until trial and ordered costs in the cause.
13 Dec 2019

Y, JYW v. Y, SC

Citation

[2019] HKFC 322
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC31/2018

Joinder was unnecessary because the husband did not seek specific proprietary orders requiring transfer of legal title from the father and the father can be a witness; extensive third‑party discovery was refused because requests were overbroad, insufficiently particularised, not necessary for FDR and disproportionate; where appropriate the court can achieve relief by add‑back rather than joining a third party or ordering intrusive discovery.
29 Jan 2019

LCYP v. JEK

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC3/2018

CTC was joined as 2nd respondent because valid service in Delaware had been established, the joinder was necessary and convenient to determine whether the JK Trust funds were available to the Husband and to facilitate enforcement of any order, and Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) authorises joinder where a third party's presence is necessary for just and complete determination of disputed issues; the Husband did not oppose joinder.
4 Aug 2016

CHAN KON FUNG v. GALLOP PIONEER LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KON FUNG v. GALLOP PIONEER LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1357/2011

The court allowed defendants to re-amend their Defence & Counterclaim because their proposed amendments were consistent with existing pleadings and necessary to clarify issues raised (not unduly prejudicial), granted leave for defendants to file the Ip 6th affirmation and retrospective leave for Nie 2nd and 3rd affirmations, but refused plaintiff's Amendment Summons because the proposed amendments represented a fundamental and inadequately particularised change of case (retraction of prior positive case on AUD16.3m) that would unfairly prejudice defendants and fail the pleadings discipline re…
21 Dec 2007

LIU MA CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. LIAU YIN FU

Citation

LIU MA CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. LIAU YIN FU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA181/2004

Because the defendant reasonably joined the third parties and relied upon their expert demarcation evidence, there was a common interest and no duplication of expert expense; costs follow the event and in the exercise of discretion the defendant's costs of defending the action fairly include the costs he was ordered to pay the third parties, therefore the costs order nisi should not be varied and is made absolute.
11 Nov 2005

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. NG AI KHENG JASMINE

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. NG AI KHENG JASMINE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA741/2004

Defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue: the plaintiff validly entered possession by notice to tenant and lawfully sold the mortgaged property; the sale price was not shown to be improper; the certificate of indebtedness and pleadings established indebtedness; proposed joinder and counterclaim only affect quantum and do not defeat liability; summary judgment was therefore properly entered and the appeal must be dismissed.
19 Nov 2004

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HERBERT TSOI & PARTNERS (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HERBERT TSOI & PARTNERS (a firm) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2000

Court granted leave to amend the summonses to join the three former subsidiaries and adjourned the amended summonses; no exceptional circumstances justified proceeding in their absence; Serlen was treated by consent and production deadline adjusted; wasted costs caused by incorrect information were awarded against the liquidators (HK$4,000); overall costs of the summonses (except the consent order and Serlen wasted costs) were ordered to be paid by the respondents to the liquidators to be taxed if not agreed, because respondents unreasonably delayed cooperative disclosure.
19 Sept 1997

BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING & SHIPPING N.V. AND ANOTHER v. SUNKONGAO CO. LTD.

Citation

BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING & SHIPPING N.V. AND ANOTHER v. SUNKONGAO CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/1994

The application for discovery was dismissed because the agency status of R?hlig was disputed and central to the issues for trial; the court will not assume a third party is an agent for the purpose of ordering discovery and thus either the defendant must accept agency or the plaintiffs must join R?hlig or otherwise prove agency at trial.
28 Oct 1986

YU JING JENN v. WONG PE WUN AND OTHERS

Citation

YU JING JENN v. WONG PE WUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP2/1986

The interim ex parte injunction was discharged because the purchaser of the property had not been joined and there was no evidence of impropriety by the purchaser, continuation of the injunction would materially prejudice the purchaser, and the plaintiff's interests were adequately protected by the registered writ and the defendant's undertaking; consequently injunctive relief was not justified.