GORDON CHAN v. CHAN CI KA CINDY

DCCJ 5024/2023

[2026] HKDC 111

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 5024 OF 2023

--------------------------------------

BETWEEN

--------------------------------------

------------------------------

DECISION

------------------------------

A. INTRODUCTION

1.  This is a defamation claim. Three summonses are before the court. Chronologically, they are:

(1) A summons issued by the plaintiff, Gordon Chan (陳洪基), on 19 June 2025, seeking an order that unless the defendant, Chan Ci Ka Cindy (陳思嘉), serves her signed witness statements as to facts within 14 days, she be debarred from doing so (the “Unless Order Summons”);

(2) A summons issued by Cindy Chan on 9 July 2025, seeking an order that this action be stayed on an interim basis pending the determination of High Court Probate Action No HCAP 14/2023 (the “Probate Action”) (the “Stay Summons”); and

(3) A summons issued by Gordon Chan on 15 August 2025, seeking an order that this action be transferred to the Court of First Instance of the High Court (the “Transfer Summons”).

2.  With respect to the Transfer Summons, in paragraph 1(1) of his Reply Note dated 9 January 2026, Mr Yu, counsel for the Plaintiff, confirmed that Gordon Chan would not pursue the transfer. In these circumstances, the Transfer Summons is no longer a live issue, save as to the question of costs, which I shall address later in this Decision.

3.  At the conclusion of the hearing, judgment was reserved. This Decision addresses all three Summonses.

B. BACKGROUND FACTS

4.  To appreciate the circumstances under which the three summonses were issued, it is necessary to consider the background of the parties and the following three actions involving, directly or indirectly, Gordon Chan and Cindy Chan.

5.  Gordon Chan qualified as a solicitor in Hong Kong in mid-1982. He became a partner of Messrs Edward CT Wong & Co (黃熾棠律師行) (the “Firm”) since 1990. He is now a senior consultant at the Firm.

6.  Cindy Chan is the daughter of Chan Tong Kwan (陳唐坤), who passed away in Ontario, Canada on 7 September 2020 (the “Deceased”). Cindy Chan’s mother is Madam Ng. Prior to his death, the Deceased had resided in Canada for more than 30 years.

7.  The Deceased had two sons with Madam Leung – the elder, Chan Man Lung Samson (陳文龍), and the younger, Chan Man Piu (陳文彪) (“CMP”). CMP passed away on 20 September 2019, predeceasing the Deceased. He was survived by a daughter, Chan Tamara Yuen Ching (陳婉晴) (“Apple Chan”). In other words, Samson Chan, CMP, and Cindy Cahn are half-blood siblings.

B1. HCAP 14/2023­- The Probate Action

8.  In paragraph 7 of her witness statement filed in the Probate Action on 29 September 2025, Cindy Chan stated that on 19 September 2020, following the death of the Deceased, she received a WhatsApp message from Samson Chan enclosing a copy of the Deceased’s Will dated 11 June 1990 (the “Copy Will”). Samson Chan informed Cindy Chan that Yeung Ho Lam Sherman (楊浩霖), a business partner of the Deceased, had retrieved the Copy Will from the safe of the company in which both the Deceased and Sherman Yeung were partners. Cindy Chan further stated that, in a letter from the Firm to Sherman Yeung dated 12 June 1990 and signed by Edward CT Wong (黃熾棠), then a partner of the Firm, Edward Wong wrote:

“TK[1] has asked me to enclose herewith copy of his last will for your keeping. The original is with my firm.”

9.  This Court does not have before it the Copy Will. However, it appears undisputed that, according to clause 2 of the Will, the Deceased gave, devised, and bequeathed all real and personal property and estate, wherever situated, to his three children – namely, Samson Chan, CMP, and Cindy Chan – as tenants in common in equal shares.

10.  For reasons the details of which I need not set out, on 22 March 2023 Cindy Chan commenced the Probate Action against Samson Chan, Apple Chan, Sherman Yeung, and Edward Wong as the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th Defendants respectively. She sought an order that the Court pronounce for the force and validity for the Copy Will, and that letters of administration of the Copy Will in solemn form of law be granted in favour of an independent lawyer or professional accountant as the sole administrator. The crux of her claim is set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Statement of Claim, in which she pleads that:

“19. By reason that the original of the Will cannot now be found and there is no superseding will, the Will was never revoked or destroyed by the Deceased or by any other person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking the same, but was at the time of his death a valid and subsisting will of the Deceased.

20. In so far as necessary, the mislaid or unfound of the original of the Will is in all the circumstances not sufficient to support any inference or give rise to any presumption that the same was revoked or destroyed by the Deceased or by any other person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking the same.”

11.  It appears that paragraph 20 of the Statement of Claim was filed in response to the letters dated 5 and 20 September 2022 (the letters were not placed before the Court but were referred to in paragraph 31 of the Statement of Claim in the Probate Action). In those letters, Samson Chan and Sherman Yeung “took the position that the Will had been revoked by destruction prior to the death of the Deceased and the Deceased died intestate without a valid will.”

12.  In his Defence filed in the Probate Action on 11 May 2023, Samson Chan denied the reliefs claimed by Cindy Chan. The crux of his defence is set out in paragraph 9(b) and 9(e), in which he stated that:

“9 (a) ….

(b) [Samson Chan] was verbally informed by Mr. Gordon Chan, a partner of [the Firm], that when [Edward Wong] retired in 1990, [Edward Wong] should have returned all originals entrusted to him or the firm by his client before his retirement otherwise the original Will would be passed onto Mr. Gordon Chan and could now be found amongst the papers of the firm;

(c) …

(d) …

(e) it is therefore [Samson Chan’s] reasonable opinion that the Will must have been revoked by its destruction because the original thereof cannot be found/ located.”

13.  Samson Chan was represented by the Firm when the Defence was filed. His pleaded case – that “the Will must have been revoked by its destruction because the original thereof cannot be found/ located” – relies upon Gordon Chan’s evidence that, when Edward Wong retired in 1990, “he should have returned all originals entrusted to him or the firm by his client before his retirement otherwise the original Will would be passed onto Mr Gordon Chan and could now be found amongst the papers of the firm.”

14.  In paragraph 3 of his witness statement filed in the Probate Action on 16 December 2025 – after the injunction in HCA 2442/2024 was granted by DHCJ Gary CC Lam on 18 March 2025 (see below), and at a time when Samson Chan was represented by another firm of solicitors – Samson Chan expressed his intention “to take a neutral stance” in the Probate Action and further stated that he did not “seek to advance or oppose” Cindy Chan’s claim to have the Will propounded by the Court.

15.  In paragraph 34 of his witness statement, however, Samson Chan stated:

“34. As to the whereabouts of the original of the Copy Will, I recall that Mr Gordon Chan had previously informed me verbally that when [Edward Wong] retired in 1990, he should have returned all original documents entrusted to him or to the firm by clients before his retirement. Otherwise, the original of the Copy Will would have been passed to Mr Gordon Chan and could be found among the firm’s papers. However, no such original was located. In light of this, there remained a real possibility that the original of the Copy Will had been returned to [the Deceased] many years ago, and that he might have discarded it due to the long passage of time.”

This aligns with the plea in paragraph 8 of the Amended Reply in the Defamation Action (see below).

16.  Conversely, in paragraphs 25 and 29 of her witness statement filed on 29 September 2025, Cindy Chan stated that:

“25. During the lifetime of the Deceased, I was regularly in contact with the Deceased and on good terms with him. He told me on numerous occasions that he had executed a will which was kept in the possession or custody of the Firm. This was also confirmed by the 1990 Letter. I therefore verily believe that the original Will was lost/mislaid by the Firm.

26… I also note that in Paragraph 9(e) of the Defence, there is an alternative assertion that the Will must have been revoked by its destruction as the original thereof cannot be found/located by relying on the presumption of revocation of the Will as the Deceased had repeatedly told Samson during his life time that he would not leave anything for his children after his death. I confirm that I had not heard from the Deceased of this bold assertion. Insofar as I understood, the Deceased maintained a very harmony relationship with [Samson Chan], [CMP], [Apple Chan] and me. There is no reason why the Deceased would deviate from the Copy Will.”

17.  In her Defence and Counterclaim filed on 26 June 2025, Apple Chan counterclaimed for, inter alia, a declaration that the Copy Will be propounded in solemn form. In other words, Apple Chan supports Cindy Chan’s claim.

18.  According to Apple Chan, Sherman Yeung recently passed away, and Edward Wong could not be found.

B2. DCCJ 5024/2023- The Defamation Action

19.  On 13 November 2023, Gordon Chan filed a Statement of Claim in this action (the “Defamation Action”) against Cindy Chan. The background to this action is that, on or about March 2021, a WhatsApp Group named “Trio” (三人組) (the “Trio Group Chat”) was created, consisting of Samson Chan, Cindy Chan, and Apple Chan. Cindy Chan’s case is that the Trio Group Chat was formed to discuss matters relating to the estate of the Deceased including the administration of the estate.

20.  The two WhatsApp messages which Gordon Chan alleges were defamatory of him were sent by Cindy Chan to Samson Chan and Apple Chan in the Trio Group Chat on 12 and 13 September 2023 respectively, and were in the following terms:

“爸爸生前立下遺囑，只有遺囑執行人可以處理他的遺產

你同陳鴻基做嘅嘢係不合法將來你自己同法官解釋”

“Samson, 請你找一些可信同有經驗的律師，諮詢爸爸的遺產應該怎樣合法處理承辦。陳鴻基到今天都沒有實質證據解釋為何遺囑在他的託管下不見了，還教唆人非法地不用遺囑處理遺產去逃稅，最好問清楚其他律師這樣做的後果。因為你哋繼續不合法地處理遺產，最終係會有機會坐監同負責我和蘋果的律師費。最終係會使好多律師費。我早前問過蘋果，我同佢現在到目前為止已經洗咗加埋超過hk60萬的律師費。請你同陳洪基不要繼續不合法地處理落去! Sherman Yeung, Apple同我都贊成用遺囑，只有你一方在不合法的理由下選擇唔用，將來去到法庭，如果你哋輸嘅話後果好嚴重，除咗要賠償蘋果同我還有機會因不正當處理遺產而坐監。”

21.  The defences pleaded in the Amended Defence filed on 9 May 2024 are justification, fair comment, and qualified privileged. One of the particulars of justification, pleaded in paragraph 9A(b) of the Amended Defence, is as follows:

“Despite the Will was kept at [the Firm] following the execution of the Will, the Will remains mislaid/unfound to this day of the Amended Defence. As a matter of fact, as the date of the Amended Defence, [the Firm] never provided any credible explanation and answer as to the whereabouts of the Will.”

Furthermore, another particular of justification is set out in paragraph 9A(d) of the Amended Defence, in which Cindy Chan pleads that:

“On or about 10 June 2021, [Cindy Chan] was given to understand from Samson that [Gordon Chan] advised Samson to apply for probate in Canada and in Hong Kong by way of intestacy to evade tax liability in Canada. This was recorded by way of a voice message from Samson and sent to [Cindy Chan] via WhatsApp. The voice message was subsequently forwarded to the Trio Group Chat at 5:57pm on 12 September 2023. The contents of which (in Chinese) are as follows:

“同埋呢，而家呢當喺香港冇遺囑咁做，因為加拿大嗰邊呢就要我哋呢，畀一份嗰個平安紙嘅正本佢，咁香港阿陳洪基律師就話呢，而家就當係呢， 我哋呢邊就就會冇遺囑㗎咁做囉，咁所以可以快好多啦。係啦，因為咧，如果到時我哋香港呢度用咗個平安紙做呢，可能法院會扣起咗嗰個平安紙，咁到時如果我哋攞返嘅certified copy呢，拎去加拿大嗰邊呢可能就會，加拿大嗰邊就會問，點解你係certified copy，咁就可能會驚動到稅局，咁樣樣係啦。”

(the “Alleged Tax Evasion Advice”)

22.  In paragraph 8 of the Amended Reply, with reference to §9A(b) of the Amended Defence, Gordon Chan pleads as follows:

“Save that the Will is not found, paragraph 9A(b) is denied. Before the retirement of [Edward Wong] in 1990, he verbally told [Gordon Chan] that all originals (including the Will) entrusted to him or [the Firm] by his clients had been or otherwise would be returned to clients before his retirement. As such, the original Will should have then been returned to [the Deceased] by [Edward Wong]; thus, the original Will could not be found amongst the papers of [the Firm]. The same has been explained to [Cindy Chan] by way of paragraph 9(b) of the Defence filed on 12 May 2023 under [the Probate Action].”

It is therefore clear from paragraph 8 of the Amended Reply in the Defamation Action that Gordon Chan expressly referred to and relied upon paragraph 9(b) of the Defence filed by Samson Chan in the Probate Action.

B3. HCA 2442/2024- The Conflict of Interest Action

23.  Again, for reasons the details of which I need not set out, on 10 December 2024, Cindy Chan issued a Writ of Summons in HCA 2442/2024 (the “Conflict of Interest Action”) against the Firm, seeking an injunction restraining the Firm from acting as solicitors representing or advising Samson Chan in the Probate Action.

24.  On 13 December 2024, Cindy Chan issued a Summons seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the Firm from acting as solicitors representing and advising Samson Chan in the Probate Action.

25.  Cindy Chan’s interlocutory injunction summons was heard by DHCJ Gary CC Lam on 11 March 2025. By a decision dated 18 March 2025 ([2025] 3 HKC 847) (the “Conflict of Interest Decision”), His Lordship granted the injunction sought.

26.  Relevantly, in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Conflict of Interest Decision, His Lordship observed that:

“11. Therefore, broadly speaking, one of the issues in the Defamation Action is whether the original Will was mislaid by Gordon Chan or whether the original Will was indeed returned to the Deceased. Gordon Chan would of course like to have a finding that the original Will was indeed returned to the Deceased, rather than that it was mislaid by him, because the latter would tend to suggest that there was some misconduct on the part of Gordon Chan and the Firm.

…

12. If the original Will was returned to the Deceased, then this would lend support to Samson Chan’s defence set out in §9(e) of his Defence in the Probate Action, namely, as quoted in §5 above:

‘it is therefore [Samson Chan’s] reasonable opinion that the Will must have been revoked by its destruction because the original thereof cannot be found/located.’”

C. THE STAY SUMMONS

27.  As Gordon Chan is not seeking an order in terms of the Transfer Summons, I shall first address the Stay Summons.

C1. Applicable Legal Principles

28.  The legal principles applicable to an application for stay of proceedings are well established and not in dispute. I summarise them below.

29.  Under s 48(5) of the District Court Ordinance:

“The Court may stay any proceedings before it, where it thinks fit to do so, either of its own motion or on the application of any person, whether or not a party to the proceedings.”

30.  O 1B, rule 1(2)(e), RDC also provides that:

“… the Court may by order –

(e) stay the whole or part of any proceeding or judgment either generally or until a specified date or event.”

31.  In Re Chime Corporation Ltd, HCMP 4146/2001 (unrep, 11 March 2005), Kwan J (as she then was) observed at paragraph 14 that:

“ The correct approach, …in an application for a temporary stay of proceedings is ‘to consider the balance of convenience and fairness as between the parties’ … and the court should exercise its discretion in such a manner ‘to ensure that its procedures are used in a logical, fair and cost efficient manner’ ...The question at hand is not a question of deprivation of the right of a litigant to proceed altogether, but a question of case management.”

32.  In Luen Tat Watch Band Manufacturer Ltd v Li Sin Man Seline & Anor, HCA 1428/2012 (unrep, 25 July 2014), DHCJ ST Poon (as he then was) stated at paragraphs 40-41 that:

“40. In my judgment, the approach adopted by Kwan J in Re Chime Corporation Ltd must be correct. In the present days, it is not uncommon that there are at one time multiple proceedings pending involving the same or related parties, on the same or related subject matters. Although the parties in each case might not be identical to that of the others, the decision of the court on some particular issues in a case might well affect how the parties conduct the other proceedings. To stay one or some of he proceedings pending the results of others, in appropriate cases, is too obvious a choice for saving unnecessary costs and court resources. As pointed out by the learned Judge in Re Chime Corporation Ltd, it is not a question of deprivation of the right of a litigant to proceed altogether, but a question of case management.

41. The court’s discretion to order a stay is now expressly provided under Order 1B, rule (1)(e) of the RHC, as one of the court’s general powers of case management. The court may by order stay the whole or part of any proceedings either generally, or until a specified date or event. This general power is not restricted in any way under the rule and not only applicable to situations where multiple proceedings exist. In exercising such power, the court should consider the balance of convenience and fairness as between the parties, and to ensure that its procedures are used in a logical, fair and cost-efficient manner.”

33.  Accordingly, whether to grant a stay of the Defamation Action pending the determination of the Probate Action is a matter of case management. In exercising its discretion, the Court should consider the balance of convenience and fairness as between the parties, and ensure that its procedures are used in a logical, fair and cost-efficient manner.

C2. Discussion

34.  Guided by the above principles, it is my judgement that, for the following reasons, a stay of the Defamation Action pending the determination of the Probate Action ought to be granted.

35.  First, I refer to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Conflict of Interest Decision quoted in paragraph 26 above. As the learned Judge observed – and with which I respectfully agree – one of the issues in the Defamation Action is whether the original Will was mislaid by Gordon Chan or returned to the Deceased. It is also evident from the relevant paragraphs in the Statement of Claim and in the Defence in the Probate Action that this is one of the issues, if not the most important issue, therein. Therefore, there is an overlap between the Defamation Action and the Probate Action, namely, whether the original Will was mislaid by Gordon Chan or returned to the Deceased. The existence of this overlap was properly acknowledged by Mr Yu[2]. In light of this overlap, the Court’s decision in the Probate Action on the issue may materially affect how the parties conduct the Defamation Action. As submitted by Mr Au[3], a stay of the Defamation Action would allow both parties to reassess their respective positions following the determination of the Probate Action.

36.  Second, in paragraph 14 of her witness statement filed in the Probate Action, Cindy Chan specifically referred to the WhatsApp voice message sent by Samson Chan on or about 10 June 2021, as well as the Alleged Tax Evasion Advice:

“On or about 10 June 2021, I received a WhatsApp voice message from Samson and was given to understand that it was Mr. Gordon Chan’s professional advice (partner of the Firm) that in using the Will would alert the tax authority in Canada and would not be able to evade tax liability and therefore the Estate should be distributed intestate instead of relying on the Copy Will. This was recorded by way of a voice message from Samson.”

This forms part of her evidence in the Probate Action. Although Samson Chan did not address either the WhatsApp voice message or the Alleged Tax Evasion Advice in his witness statement, and although Gordon Chan has not filed any witness statement in the Probate Action, the Court in the Probate Action may nonetheless find it necessary to make a determination on this issue. The Court’s decision in the Probate Action on this matter may materially affect how the parties conduct the Defamation Action.

37.  Third, I also agree with Mr Au that granting the stay application would save costs and conserve the Court’s resources. Mr Au informed the Court that, at the forthcoming Case Management Conference of the Probate Action scheduled before Master Dick Ho on 19 March 2026, Cindy Chan will seek an order to set the Probate Action down for trial with two days reserved. Given that Apple Chan supports her claim and that Samson Chan now adopts a “neutral stance,” the Probate Action could be resolved expeditiously. Therefore, the balance of convenience favours granting a stay.

38.  For completeness, I should also note that Mr Au further informed the Court that the parties in the Probate Action have agreed to conduct mediation on 28 January 2026. Again, in light Apple Chan’s support for Cindy Chan’s claim and Samson Chan’s neutral stance, I take the view that, at the very least, the parties should be afforded the opportunity to settle their disputes in the Probate Action through mediation – which the courts always encourage – instead of ordering Cindy Chan to serve her witness statement in the Defamation Action, which would increase costs. Once again, the balance of convenience favours a stay.

39.  I now turn to Mr Yu’s arguments against a stay.

40.  First, Mr Yu argued that since Samson Chan now adopts a neutral stance in the Probate Action, the overlapping factual issue may no longer be a live or critical issue. With respect, I do not agree:

(1) Although Samson Chan stated that he adopted a neutral stance toward Cindy Chan’s claim in the Probate Action, he nevertheless maintains the case pleaded in paragraph 9(b) of his Defence, referred to in paragraph 12 above, which remains unamended. As the issues in the Probate Action are defined by the parties’ pleadings, the question of whether the original Will was mislaid by Gordon Chan or returned to the Deceased continues to be a live issue in the Probate Action. This is especially so in light of Samson Chan’s allegation in paragraph 34 of his witness statement filed in the Probate Action, as quoted in paragraph 15 above. This is in direct conflict with Cindy’s Chan’s evidence on this issue contained in paragraphs 25 and 29 of her witness statement filed in the Probate Action, quoted in paragraph 16 above.

(2) If the original Will had been returned to the Deceased and could not be found, as alleged by Samson Chan in his Defence, a rebuttable presumption would arise that the testator destroyed the Will for the purpose of revoking it: Re Estate of Lioe Ka Khie [2009] 2 HKLRD 115 at paragraph 21 per Johnson Lam J (as Lam PJ then was). Even if Samson Chan adopts a neutral stance, the Court in the Probate Action may nevertheless find it necessary to make the relevant findings of fact – particularly whether the Will was mislaid by Gordon Chan or returned to the Deceased – before determining whether the original Will was revoked. This is especially so in light of Samson Chan’s allegation in paragraph 34 of his witness statement filed in the Probate Action, as quoted in paragraph 15 above.

41.  Second, Mr Yu argued that it is disproportionate to stay the Defamation Action on account of a single defamatory statement made by Cindy Chan (ie「陳鴻基到今天都沒有實質證據解釋為何遺囑在他的托管下不見了…」), and that the remaining eight statements concerned Cindy Chan’s remarks about Gordon Chan acting illegally, advising a client to evade tax liability, being incredible and lacking experience as a lawyer, and engaging in criminal conduct[4]. With respect, I do not agree. As is evident from paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statement of Claim in the Defamation Action, the WhatsApp messages which Gordon Chan alleges were defamatory of him were relatively short, and it is unrealistic to divide them into nine separate statements. Indeed, the statement which Mr Yu properly accepts would give rise to an overlapping issue in the Probate Action forms part and parcel of the WhatsApp message sent by Cindy Chan on 13 September 2023, and it would be artificial to isolate it from the message as a whole.

42.  Third, Mr Yu argued that an interim stay of the Defamation Action would not resolve the risk of inconsistent rulings or findings, because it is uncertain whether, and to what extent, the factual findings made by the Court in the Probate Action would address the overlapping factual issue. He further submitted that, following the final determination of the Probate Action, the District Court Judge in the Defamation Action would still be required to make his own factual findings at trial, and would not be bound by the findings in the Probate Action, which at best could be regarded as highly persuasive. With respect, the issue is not whether the findings of the Court in the Probate Action are binding or of high persuasive authority to the District Court Judge in the Defamation Action. Rather, the issue is whether those findings might affect how the parties conduct the Defamation Action. As I have already observed, the findings of the Court in the Probate Action may well influence the manner the parties conduct the Defamation Action.

43.  Fourth, Mr Yu argued that Gordon Chan should be entitled to have his case proceed efficiently and effectively, and that granting the interim stay for an indefinite period would merely cause substantial delay to justice, prejudice Gordon Chan, and run contrary to the underlying objective of the CJR. He further contended that the longer the Defamation Action remains in abeyance, the more damaging it is to Gordon Chan’s professional reputation and practice as a solicitor. With respect, I do not accept these arguments:

(1) As the authorities cited above show, the issue at hand is not one of depriving a litigant the right to proceed altogether, but rather a matter of case management.

(2) In considering whether to exercise my discretion to grant a stay, I must bear in mind the need for fairness between the parties. I take the view that where there are overlapping issues between the Defamation Action and the Probate Action, and where the determination of the Probate Action may materially affect how the parties conduct the Defamation Action, the unfairness to Cindy Chan in requiring her to incur costs in the Defamation Action outweighs any unfairness to Gordon Chan. This is especially so given that the stay is only pending the determination of the Probate Action, which may be resolved expeditiously. Once the Probate Action has been determined, Gordon Chan, if he so wishes, will be at liberty to apply for the stay to be lifted and to proceed with the Defamation Action.

D. CONCLUSION AND COSTS

44.  For the reasons set out above, I make an order in terms of the Stay Summons and dismiss the Transfer Summons and the Unless Order Summons.

45.  For the following reasons, I make a costs order nisi that costs of (a) the Stay Summons; (b) the Transfer Summons; and (c) the Unless Order Summons be in the cause of the Defamation Action, with certificate of counsel:

(1) In granting an order in terms of the Stay Summons, I was exercising a case management power.

(2) The Unless Order Summons, the Transfer Summons, and the Stay Summons were all justifiably taken out and were in the nature of seeking the Court’s directions.

The costs order nisi will be made absolute upon the expiry of 14 days from the date of this Decision.

46.  Finally, I wish to express my gratitude for the assistance which Mr Yu and Mr Au have rendered to the Court.