CHEUNG KEE FUNG CHEUNG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. THORN SECURITY (HONG KONG) LTD

HCCT 52/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO. 52 OF 2004

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. I refuse the application for consolidation. In my view, the application for consolidation was not made as soon as practicable.

2. The 3 arbitrations are at different stages of preparedness, with the 3rd arbitration (which the Plaintiff wishes to be the lead arbitration) being only at an initial stage. The 1st and 2nd arbitrations are nearly ready for substantive hearing.

3. The situation in which the Plaintiff finds itself seems to me to have been largely self-induced. Had the Plaintiff taken steps to apply for consolidation sooner, the risk of inconsistent judgments which it now says that it faces would have been obviated. Thus, the Plaintiff could have taken steps to progress its arbitration with the Housing Authority at a much earlier stage, rather than simply agreeing with the Housing Authority over a period of some 2 years to suspend the running of time for the bringing of an arbitration.

4. It was also open to the Plaintiff at an earlier stage to apply for the consolidation of the 1st and 2nd arbitrations at the very least, if it was genuinely concerned about the possibility of inconsistent judgments. It did not do so.

5. In all the circumstances, it does not seem to me appropriate to consolidate the 3 arbitrations. That would inevitably cause substantive delay to the 1st and 2nd Defendants of the order of 12 to 18 months. It would also expose the 1st and 2nd Defendants to far greater expense, relative to their more modest claims, if there were to be a consolidation of their respective arbitrations into a significantly larger multi-party arbitration at this late stage.