20 Aug 2024
The application to join the third party was refused because his claim had already been finally determined, there was no factual or legal commonality between his claim and the applicants', and the application presented no merit beyond asserting a family relationship.
15 May 2020
On the pleaded facts the plaintiff established a proprietary claim to the funds paid into the defendant’s account as resulting from alleged email fraud; service was valid and the defendant was in default; a vesting order under s 52 Trustee Ordinance was necessary and appropriate to vest the defendant’s right to claim the account proceeds in the plaintiff to enable recovery; BOCHK could be added as respondent and ordered to pay the amounts, net of bank charges and agreed legal costs, to the plaintiff.
10 Apr 2014
The court exercised its discretion to join the applicants and to permit the defendants to accept their instructions subject to a condition requiring disclosure and production of professional records within seven days, because the balance of convenience favoured applicants whose loss of choice of representative would be irreparable while any economic loss to plaintiff was compensable or controllable by subsequent disclosure and potential claims for damages; cross-examination of applicants at interlocutory stage was not required and the costs consequences were reserved.
31 Oct 2000
The application to join Ming An Insurance Co. Ltd as a Third Defendant was dismissed because Ming An's interests are identical to the second Defendant's and can be fully protected by resuming representation of the second Defendant through its solicitors; compulsory joinder would cause unnecessary pleadings, representation and cost without substantive benefit. The first Defendant's stay/estoppel application is to be dealt with at the consolidated trial rather than as a separate interlocutory hearing.
22 May 1998
The court exercised its s30 discretion to disapply s27 and allowed joinder of Shell as defendant because Shell was already a third party, had been preparing a defence so would not face a stale claim, the defendant's ability to defend was not prejudiced and the plaintiff's unexplained delay did not outweigh the equities in favour of joinder.