Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preliminary issue trial

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2022

TUENBO CO LTD v. CHEUNG SUNG LAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA566/2019

DHCJ Au‑Yeung held that the Authority Issue in HCA 566/2019 had been finally determined by DHCJ Stock SC on the strike-out summons and it would be an abuse of process to re‑open that issue; accordingly the Court refused to order a preliminary issue or consolidation, but ordered a stay of HCA 566/2019 pending resolution of HCA 2095/2016, with findings in HCA 2095/2016 to bind HCA 566/2019 and liberty to apply.
28 Aug 2020

GREAT STRATEGY PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG WEI GEORGE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 730
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP57/2020

The Court held the judge did not err in refusing a preliminary trial because resolving whether the Former Liquidators had the requisite knowledge and whether that knowledge is attributable to the plaintiffs necessarily requires resolution of factual disputes about the acts and omissions alleged to constitute negligence; a preliminary trial would not save time or costs and the judge's case‑management decision was not plainly wrong.
16 Jan 2020

GREAT STRATEGY PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG WEI GEORGE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 151
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA962/2015

Application dismissed because defendants failed to show that a separate trial of the limitation issues would save costs; limitation issues are factually and legally intertwined with substantive liability (including attribution of knowledge) and would require resolution of the same disputed acts and omissions, so separation is unjustified
7 May 2013

BEIJING HANTONG YUZHI CONVENTION CENTRE LIMITED v. LAO YUAN YI

Citation

BEIJING HANTONG YUZHI CONVENTION CENTRE LIMITED v. LAO YUAN YI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1208/2010

Cross-examination of the defendant's Mainland law expert was unnecessary because the contested items were legal questions of interpretation or matters for submission to the court, not factual issues requiring viva voce expert evidence; accordingly the plaintiff's application to cross-examine was dismissed.
1 Feb 2013

BEIJING HANTONG YUZHI CONVENTION CENTRE LTD v. LAO YUAN YI

Citation

BEIJING HANTONG YUZHI CONVENTION CENTRE LTD v. LAO YUAN YI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1208/2010

The court refused to strike out the claim. It granted the plaintiff leave to re-amend the reply and to file late affirmation and directed that the discrete locus standi issue (including whether Hong Kong trust law applies) be tried as a preliminary issue with specified timetable and limits on further evidence; costs of the defendant's striking out summons were ordered against the plaintiff (order nisi).
23 Dec 2011

SUN FOCUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUN FOCUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/2011

The judge erred in granting leave to amend without properly addressing the operation of the relation back rule (s.35(1) Limitation Ordinance) which would deem the new claims commenced on the original writ date and thus potentially deprive defendants of a limitation defence; the Court of Appeal set aside the grant of leave, remitted the amendment summons to the Court of First Instance for determination in light of this judgment and directed that the plaintiff's reliance on s.26 be tried as an issue in the amendment summons.
14 Aug 2008

CHARLES TSU YEW WONG AND ANOTHER v. HSBC PRIVATE TRUSTEE (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CHARLES TSU YEW WONG AND ANOTHER v. HSBC PRIVATE TRUSTEE (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10631/1998

The court held that the question whether SC Wong was of unsound mind for the purposes of s.22 Cap.347 is a distinct, self-contained issue (establishable by medical and witness evidence), that determining it could finally dispose of the action or a substantial part thereof, and that exceptional circumstances and proportionality justified ordering a separate trial of that preliminary issue; accordingly the application was granted.
4 Jul 2006

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KAN MOON TONG DANNY AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KAN MOON TONG DANNY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA732/2004

The court refused the applications for a preliminary issue trial and to stay related proceedings because the issues were intertwined with factual disputes requiring discovery and full trial, a split trial would not be sufficiently convenient or just, would increase delay and costs, risk undermining a fair trial and impose undue stress on litigants; accordingly the applications were dismissed and directions hearing adjourned, with costs to be determined at the directions hearing.
4 Jul 2006

LAM WEIG LINH v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM WEIG LINH v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4681/2003

The court refused to order trial of the preliminary issue and refused stays of the related actions because it was not just and convenient to split the trial; the interconnected factual and documentary issues, likely discovery, overlapping witnesses and realistic time estimates meant a split trial would increase delay, costs and prejudice; consequently the solicitor defendants' applications for separate preliminary trials and stays were dismissed.
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.