XCHRX VIRTYRE LTD. v. SOURCE INTERIORS LTD.

HCA19978/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.19978 OF 1998

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The Plaintiff on 7th January 1999 issued an O.14 summons which is returnable on 1st March 1999. On the same day the Plaintiff also issued a summons under O.29, r.10 seeking interim payment from the Defendant in respect of its occupation of the Plaintiff's flat. This summons was heard on 26th January 1999. The Master adjourned that summons to 1st March 1999 as well, to be heard together with the O.14 summons. The Plaintiff appeals against the decision of the Master.

2. The Court has repeatedly said that it would not interfere with the exercise of discretion unless the discretion was erroneously made, and furthermore, the Court would not interfere with the management of a case by the judge. The Master's decision is clearly for the purpose of better managing the case so that the arguments could be heard at the same time. The hearing before the Master was fixed for three minutes Even though the Defendant had at that stage not filed any affirmation, in my view, the Master had not acted erroneously in adjourning the hearing when he was informed by the Defendant's legal representative that the Defendant was not consenting to the application. That being a three minute hearing, it was invariably the practice to have matters that required argument to be adjourned.

3. The Plaintiff is understandably concerned with the time available to it on 1st March 1999 : the hearing is listed for 15 minutes. But if the Plaintiff is to inform the Registry in advance of the two summons being listed at the same time, I hope suitable accommodation can be given to the Plaintiff in terms of time allocation.

4. I have certain sympathy for the Plaintiff in respect of their concern, but all in all, I do not see that I can really say the Master's discretion had been wrongly exercised in this case by adjourning the O.29, r.10 summons to 1st March 1999. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal. As for costs, I would make no order as to costs.