Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Separate trials

Legal area

Court

4 Jan 2002

ASIA BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

ASIA BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9481/2000

The application to try a preliminary issue on the cause and seat of the fire was refused because the finding would not be determinative of liability, would not yield substantial savings in time or costs, would require witnesses and experts to give duplicative evidence in subsequent trials and could produce delay through appeals; however the court ordered a split trial between liability and quantum as just and convenient.
4 Jan 2002

CHAN LAI PING AND OTHERS v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN LAI PING AND OTHERS v. RYODEN LIFT AND ESCALATOR CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9343/2000

The court refused the application to try the cause and seat of the fire as a preliminary issue because that issue would not be determinative of liability in the consolidated actions, would not deliver substantial saving of time or costs, would force witnesses and experts to give evidence twice, and was likely to provoke appeals that would delay resolution; nevertheless the court found it just and convenient to order a split trial of liability and quantum and directed parties on further directions to ensure just, speedy and economical disposal of liability issues.
6 Apr 2000

BEHRENS NG MO CHEE CINDY AND OTHERS v. CREDIT WORLD LTD.

Citation

BEHRENS NG MO CHEE CINDY AND OTHERS v. CREDIT WORLD LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/2000

The Court held there are common questions of fact and law (implied representations, legal effect of the Deed of Mutual Covenant and common transaction facts) that require identical investigation and that the deputy judge properly exercised his discretion to refuse the defendant's application; consequently the appeal was dismissed.
4 Aug 1997

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW KWOK KUEN SIDNEY

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW KWOK KUEN SIDNEY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL52/1997

It was unlawful for the magistrate to permanently stay D2's trial by reasoning that D2 would likely have been acquitted if tried with co‑defendants because that required impermissible speculation about the outcome of a hypothetical trial; accordingly the stay was quashed and mandamus ordered to require refusal of the stay application. Additionally, the proper respondent in such a judicial review is the other party to the inferior court proceedings rather than the inferior court itself.
29 Jul 1996

HUGO BOSS A.G. and Another v. SUN CHEUNG TAK MANUFACTORY LTD. and Others

Citation

HUGO BOSS A.G. and Another v. SUN CHEUNG TAK MANUFACTORY LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA174/1996

The court ordered joinder of the Dodge companies and the Wah Kei defendants because the Isaacs licence issue was sufficiently connected to the plaintiffs' proposed amended allegations (exports to Isaacs) and it was just and convenient to try those connected issues together; the joinder is conditional on the plaintiffs obtaining leave to amend the statement of claim and will lapse if such leave is not granted; potential for separate trials does not by itself render joinder inappropriate.
23 Feb 1995

WINCHEER INVESTMENTS LTD. and Others v. LOBLEY CO. LTD. and Another

Citation

WINCHEER INVESTMENTS LTD. and Others v. LOBLEY CO. LTD. and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8145/1992

The application for separate trials is dismissed because, on the present pleadings, separation would not be just and convenient: (1) issues as to what was in the contemplation of the parties overlap liability and quantum and require the same witness evidence, risking unfairness and inconsistent credibility findings; and (2) separation could prejudice the plaintiffs' right of appeal to the Privy Council because it is not sufficiently probable that any award of damages would exceed the $500,000 threshold.
17 Oct 1989

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT5/1987

The defendant failed to satisfy the court that separating liability issues would demonstrably serve the balance of justice and convenience; the complexities created by subsequent documents and conduct meant the safer course was to try all liability issues together at one trial, so the application for staged separate liability trials was refused and the matter listed for an ordinary unified liability trial.
6 Sept 1985

THE QUEEN v. LEE SHEK-CHING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE SHEK-CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC53/1985

The Court held that common law spousal immunity does not extend to the statutory offence in s.90(1); marital obligations did not excuse the wife's conduct in these facts; however refusal to order separate trials in the unusual circumstances produced a miscarriage of justice, therefore conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.
20 Oct 1975

THE QUEEN v. CECIL JAMES MATTHEW CUNNINGHAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CECIL JAMES MATTHEW CUNNINGHAM AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC144/1975

The court held that the summary of evidence supplied with the particulars of offence gave sufficient information about the nature of the conspiracy so further particulars were refused; a separate trial was unnecessary because the conspiracy was the primary charge and the evidence relevant to it would also be admissible for the substantive charges; the Crown must amend the summary to include the names of proposed witnesses (addresses not required by the Practice Direction) unless it can show good reason to withhold them; the provisional trial date stands subject to any adjournment application…