HCA 1599/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 1599 OF 2009
_________________________
BETWEEN
SHERRYKNOLL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
1st Plaintiff
KALAGATE LIMITED
2nd Plaintiff
CHORONOELL LIMITED
3rd Plaintiff
And
GRAND POWER LIMITED
Defendant
_________________________
Coram : Before Mr. Registrar K.W. Lung in Chambers (Open to the public)
Date of Hearing : 6 September 2010
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 6 September 2010
___________________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION
___________________________________
1. Mr. Wong acts for the plaintiffs and Miss Ng acts for the defendant.
2. The plaintiffs have taken out a Case Management Summons for a number of directions of inspection of documents and witness statements, which are similar to the old practice of summons for directions under Order 25 of the old RHC.
3. The parties have not filed the Timetabling Questionnaires in accordance with Order 25 rule 1 of the RHC. Nor have they filed the Mediation Certificates. They have not even discussed with one another in relation to the progress of their cases.
4. Mr. Wong asks me to give directions on discovery of the documents and witness statements as if it were a summons for directions. He considers that the Timetabling Questionnaires can be filed later. He even proposes a Case Management Conference for the matters such as the expert evidence.
5. Miss Ng has no objection to Mr. Wong’s proposal.
6. I decline to accede to their requests because this proposal is tantamount to total disregard of the Civil Justice Reform and the Orders, the Rules and the Practice Directions made for the reform.
7. I will not be able to case manage the matter for the parties without the information set out in the Timetabling Questionnaires from the parties. I do not have any idea whether the matter requires expert evidence, and if so, what directions should be given to the parties to prepare the expert evidence as to the areas on which the expert evidence should be needed and whether a single joint expert report will be possible; and if not, whether the experts should meet together to work out the disputed issues with reasons and explanations. All these issues should have been considered by the solicitors representing the parties before the Case Management Summons so that the solicitors may assist me to map out the proper directions for the further conduct of the proceedings at the Case Management Summons hearing today, bearing in mind that all these steps to be taken are for the purpose of making the parties focus on the issues of disputes and to prepare the evidence for the trial.
8. It is indeed very disappointing to see that the solicitors acting for the parties are still not paying attention to the new rules and Practice Directions more than 15 months after the commencement of the CJR.
9. As I have said, I am unable to case manage this matter without the information. I have no alternative but to adjourn this Case Management Summons to 11:30 a.m. on 13 September 2010 before myself.
10. As to costs of today’s hearing, since both parties have not complied with the new rules and Practice Directions, I make no order as to costs and the costs between solicitors and clients for the plaintiffs and the defendant are disallowed too.
(K.W. Lung)
Mr. H. Wong of Michael Li & Co. for Plaintiffs.
Ms. A. Ng of Keith Lam, Lau & Chan for Defendant.