Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Split trial

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2025

CHIEN KUN ALLEN v. AIM GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4981
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2495/2014

The court found the threshold in Order 29 r11(1)(b) met (there was a judgment to be assessed), concluded that the claimant's delay in commencing the quantum stage was not unreasonable or culpable, accepted on the evidence it was likely the claimant would recover at least US$1,317,775, and held the court had jurisdiction to include a pre-judgment interest component; exercising its discretion the court ordered an interim payment of US$1.7 million against AIM and Ms Liu to mitigate prejudice from delay in final quantum assessment.
28 Nov 2024

DRACCO NETHERLANDS B.V v. SIMBA TOYS GMBH & CO. KG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3061
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA304/2014

The application for a split trial and for leave to adduce further late evidence was refused because the applicant failed to show exceptional or special grounds to depart from the normal rule of trying all issues together; the proposed preliminary issues would not dispose of the action or materially reduce trial time or costs; any audit or account would rely on the same documents already disclosed and an auditor's conclusions would not be binding and thus would not achieve the claimed economy; there was insufficient evidence of document destruction to warrant the relief sought; and the late ev…
19 Aug 2024

LI YUHONG v. oOo SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD) (formerly known as AMTD Global Markets Ltd) (formerly known as AMTD Asset Management Ltd)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA475/2020

The court refused the late addition of a new cause of action (Cat #2) because it was pleaded first in reply, lacked explanation for delay and posed material prejudice and risk to the scheduled trial; the court allowed stylistic/clerical amendments (Cat #1), pleadings about placing agent and Listco default (Cat #3), and post-commencement amendments about receipt/entitlements and related expert evidence (Cat #4) but directed a split trial with liability tried first given developing facts as to quantum; the proposed expert evidence met the court's admissibility conditions but conduct on quantum…
15 Mar 2024

ELITE CONSORTIUM LTD AND OTHERS v. YIM WAN POR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 704
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA66/2022

Tracing is not a free-standing basis for broad Order 24 discovery; whether tracing-related discovery is appropriate depends on whether tracing is a live issue at the imminent trial (ie whether the plaintiff can identify specific property or has a proprietary injunction) — in this case tracing was not a live issue so broad tracing discovery was refused, but limited discovery was granted where the defendants' non-admission made bank statements and certain correspondence relevant and necessary to issues in the imminent trial.
14 Sept 2023

RISE TALL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. YEUK MAN CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2333
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2399/2019

The defendant unreasonably refused the plaintiff's clear Calderbank offers which would have avoided further hearings and costs; there was no concluded agreement on 20 October 2022 because costs remained a material term; accordingly the court varied the prior costs order to reallocate costs consistent with the reasonableness of the parties' conduct and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the variation application to the plaintiff, to be summarily assessed on the papers.
14 Sept 2023

RISE TALL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. YEUK MAN CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2333
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1953/2019

The plaintiff's without‑prejudice‑save‑as‑to‑costs offers of 19 and 20 October 2022 were sufficiently clear as amended and the defendant acted unreasonably in refusing them; acceptance would have avoided substantial hearings and costs. Accordingly the Costs Order Nisi is varied as sought and the defendant ordered to pay the costs of the variation application to the plaintiff, to be summarily assessed on the papers under the timetable specified.
18 May 2023

RISE TALL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. YEUK MAN CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2399/2019

Paragraph 1(a) was dismissed because the proposed evidence did not constitute recognised expert evidence governed by recognised standards and would not be helpful; the master's split-trial order was set aside because the defendant demonstrated that hiving off quantum was not justified as an exception to the general rule of single trial given the narrow, self-contained scope of valuation evidence and the risks of duplication, delay and prejudice; the fresh expert report was excluded for failure to show special grounds and because it could have been obtained earlier.
18 May 2023

RISE TALL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. YEUK MAN CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1953/2019

Paragraph 1(a) (evidence as to what constitutes 'properly managed and maintained premises') is not admissible expert evidence because no recognised specialised expertise governed by standards exists and it would not assist the court; a split trial separating quantum from liability was not justified because exceptional circumstances were not shown and the anticipated savings did not outweigh the risk of duplication, delay and increased aggregate costs; expert evidence is appropriate for valuation only; fresh expert report on appeal was not admitted because no special grounds shown and the repo…
30 Nov 2022

CHEUNG KONG PROPERTY (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) LTD v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3676
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA280/2021

The court held that the 1st Defendant was not entitled to limit its liability for costs to 1 November 2022, that the 1st Defendant's opposition and the Defendants' summons were plainly unmeritorious and withdrawn late, and therefore ordered the 1st Defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by the summonses on an indemnity basis to be summarily assessed; the court declined to determine at this interlocutory stage whether the contractual indemnity in clause 9.05 of the Deed is enforceable given pleaded disputes about the Deed.
3 Aug 2022

LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2416
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1936/2021

The Registrar acted within his case management powers: a late timetabling questionnaire did not invalidate the proceedings or preclude consideration; the Registrar could direct the government defendant to file a list of documents to facilitate just resolution despite Order 77; and the defendant was entitled to apply for further and better particulars (including as to quantum) under the general rules. There was no good reason to disturb the Registrar's directions and the appeal is dismissed.