Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Separate trial of issues

Legal area

Court

4 Jan 2002

CHAN TZE KAI WYLLIE v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN TZE KAI WYLLIE v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9789/2000

The court refused the application for a preliminary trial limited to the cause and seat of the fire because it was not satisfied there would be substantial savings of time or costs, the preliminary issue would not be determinative of liability for the consolidated actions, witnesses would be required to give evidence at multiple trials causing inefficiency, and potential appeals would cause delay. The court did, however, order a split trial between issues of liability and issues of quantum as just and convenient to secure a fair, efficient process.
4 Jan 2002

CHOW SANG SANG JEWELLERY CO. LTD. v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOW SANG SANG JEWELLERY CO. LTD. v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17003/1998

The court refused the applicants' request for a separate preliminary trial on the cause and seat of the fire because it would not be determinative of liability, was unlikely to save substantial time or costs, would require witnesses to give evidence twice and might lead to delay through appeals; however, the court ordered a split trial of liability and quantum as just and convenient.
4 Jan 2002

CHOW SANG SANG JEWELLERY CO. LTD. v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOW SANG SANG JEWELLERY CO. LTD. v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9571/1997

The court refused the plaintiffs' application to try a preliminary issue on the cause and seat of the fire because it would not be determinative of liability, would not produce substantial savings of time or costs, would likely require witnesses to give evidence twice, and could lead to delay through appeals; the court did order a split trial between issues of liability and quantum as being just and convenient.
4 Jan 2002

DR. LAWRENCE T.S. LEUNG v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. OTHERS

Citation

DR. LAWRENCE T.S. LEUNG v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5710/2000

The court refused to order a preliminary trial on the cause and seat of the fire because such a trial would not be determinative of liability, would likely require witnesses and experts to give duplicate evidence at subsequent trials, would not produce substantial savings of time or costs and could cause delay by inviting appeals; however the court found it just and convenient to order a split trial between liability and quantum.
4 Jan 2002

LIM RI CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LIM RI CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9846/2000

The court refused the application to try a preliminary issue limited to the cause and seat of the fire because it would not be determinative of liability, would likely duplicate witness evidence at a subsequent trial, would not yield substantial savings in time or cost and could create delay through appeals; however the court found it just and convenient to order a split trial separating liability and quantum to facilitate a just, speedy and economical disposal of the proceedings.
4 Jan 2002

LAM SHUN KIT AND ANOTHER v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM SHUN KIT AND ANOTHER v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9341/2000

The court refused the application to try a preliminary issue on the cause and seat of the fire because it would not be determinative of liability, would not substantially save time or costs, would require witnesses and experts to repeat evidence, and would risk delay from appeals; however the court found it just and convenient to order a split trial separating liability and quantum of damages.
4 Jan 2002

RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GARLEY BUILDING (NATHAN ROAD) AND OTHERS

Citation

RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GARLEY BUILDING (NATHAN ROAD) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2210/2001

The application to try a preliminary issue on the cause and seat of the fire was refused because the court was not persuaded there would be substantial saving of time or costs, the preliminary issue would not be determinative of liability, witnesses would likely have to give evidence twice, and the potential for appeals would cause delay; however the court ordered a split trial separating liability and quantum as just and convenient for case management.
4 Jan 2002

FILMARK INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

FILMARK INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17843/1999

The court refused the application to try the cause and seat of the fire as a preliminary issue because it would not be determinative of liability, would not produce substantial savings of time or costs, would require witnesses to give evidence twice, and risk delay from appeals; however the court ordered a split trial between liability and quantum as just and convenient and directed parties be heard on directions to ensure a just, speedy and economical disposal of liability issues.
4 Jan 2002

DR. LEUNG KAI YUEN JOSIAH AND OTHERS v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

DR. LEUNG KAI YUEN JOSIAH AND OTHERS v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2754/2000

The court refused the application to try the cause and seat of the fire as a preliminary issue because it would not be determinative of liability, would not produce substantial saving of time or costs, would duplicate witness evidence, and risk delay from appeals; however, the court ordered a split trial separating liability from quantum as just and convenient to ensure a just, speedy and economical disposal of liability issues.
8 Jan 1998

QUANTUM DESIGNS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

Citation

QUANTUM DESIGNS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL68/1996

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the plaintiff's application for a separate trial because the air waybill omission issue involved factual and expert evidence, was not a straightforward preliminary question of law, would not be dispositive of the whole action, and granting a separate trial would likely cause duplication, delay and unnecessary procedural complication; therefore it was not just and convenient to order a separate trial.