|
HCA 2095/2016 & HCA 566/2019
(Heard together)
[2021] HKCFI 2742
HCA 2095/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 2095 OF 2016
_________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
TUENBO COMPANY LIMITED
(裕達隆有限公司) |
1st Defendant |
| |
CHEUNG SUNG LAM 張崇霖
(formerly known as CHEUNG CHUNG 張松) |
2nd Defendant |
| |
WONG SUNG KING DOROTHY 黃崇瓊
(formerly known as WONG CHOI HA DOROTHY 黃彩霞) |
3rd Defendant |
| |
TUENBO (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED |
4th Defendant |
| |
CHEUNG WAI KWAN |
5th Defendant |
| |
IDEAL WIN COMPANY LIMITED |
6th Defendant |
| |
CHEUNG KA MING |
7th Defendant |
____________________
AND
HCA 566/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 566 OF 2019
____________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
TUENBO COMPANY LIMITED
(裕達隆有限公司) |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
CHEUNG SUNG LAM (張崇霖) |
1st Defendant |
| |
WONG SUNG KING DOROTHY (黃崇瓊) |
2nd Defendant |
| |
CHEUNG KA MING (張嘉銘) |
3rd Defendant |
| |
UTAHLOY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
(譽德萊管理有限公司) |
4th Defendant |
____________________
(Heard Together)
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Leung in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 21 July 2021
Date of Decision: 21 July 2021
____________________
DECISION
____________________
1. The only difference for today’s purpose is whether the defendant in the 2019 action should have stay of the time for filing and service of the defence until the determination of the 2019 summons. I do not agree that such time should be stayed and that the defendant be allowed to withhold the filing of the defence.
2. The circumstances of this case are such that whether and, if yes, what other substantive defence in the 2019 action would likely be relevant to the question of whether there should be an order for the preliminary trial of the issue of authority. In particular, there are two questions: first, whether the issue of authority is the only defence or whether there are other substantive defence, the trial of which may be said to be saved by the preliminary trial of the issue of authority; second, whether the other substantive defence is so intertwined with the authority issue so that preliminary trial of the authority issue will not materially differ from a full trial.
3. In the circumstances, I give further directions as follows (and I am using the proposed directions set out in Mr Lee’s skeleton argument subject to the necessary adjustments).
4. For the 2016 summons, there will be leave to the plaintiff to file and serve affidavit in opposition to the 2016 summons within 28 days of this order. There will be leave to the 2nd to the 4th and 6th to 7th defendants to file and serve affidavits in reply, if any, within 28 days thereafter. There will be no further affidavit without leave of the court. The 2016 summons shall be adjourned to a date to be fixed in consultation with counsel’s diaries for substantive argument, with 1 day reserved. The 2016 summons shall be heard together with the 2019 summons. Costs are reserved.
5. In respect of the 2019 summons, there will be leave to the plaintiff to file and serve affidavit in opposition to the 2019 summons within 28 days. There will be leave to the defendants to file and serve affidavit in reply, if any, within 28 days thereafter. There will be no further affidavit without leave of the court. The 2019 summons shall be adjourned to a date to be fixed in consultation with counsel’s diaries for substantive argument, with 1 day reserved. The 2019 summons shall be heard together with the 2016 summons. Costs are reserved.
[Discussion re filing of defence and further affidavit]
6. For the purpose of the 2019 action, the direction will also include that the time for filing and service of the defence be extended to 28 days from today, and time to run during vacation.
| |
( Simon Leung ) |
| |
Deputy High Court Judge |
Mr Cheng Sui Kit, of Simmons & Simmons, for the plaintiff in HCA 2095/2016
F Zimmern & Co, for the 1st defendant in HCA 2095/2016, absent
Mr Brian Lee, instructed by Edmund Cheung & Co, for the 2nd to 4th, 6th and 7th defendants in HCA 2095/2016 and the 1st to 4th defendants in HCA 566/2019
The 5th defendant in HCA 2095/2016 was not represented and did not appear
Mr Kenny Lin and Ms Natalie So, instructed by Jones Day, for the plaintiff in HCA 566/2019
|