Trenus Oceanway Ltd v. Richland International Ltd and Another

HCCW 352/2014 & HCA 227/2017 & HCA 228/2017

(HEARD TOGETHER)

[2020] HKCFI 497

HCCW 352/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING‑UP PROCEEDINGS NO 352 OF 2014

____________________

____________________

____________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 227 OF 2017

____________________

____________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 228 OF 2017

____________________

________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________________

1.On 13 September 2019 I heard three summonses, which I determined that day:

(1) The 1^st Respondent’s summons dated 12 June 2019 in HCCW 352/2014 for the petition and HCA 227/2017 and HCA 228/2017 (and corresponding summonses in the two High Court Actions) to be tried together or at the same time.  These summonses I dismissed and ordered that the 1^st Respondent pays the Petitioner’s costs forthwith with a certificate for two counsel.

(2) The 1^st Respondent’s summons dated 23 August 2019 to extend time for the parties to take out any interlocutory applications pursuant to an order dated 17 July 2019.  I granted an order in terms.

2.In addition there was a summons dated 11 February 2019 issued by the 1^st Respondent to stay the Petition, which was withdrawn.  I ordered that the costs be paid by the 1^st Respondent.

3.In this decision I summarise for the record why I dismissed the summonses to have the Petition and the High Court Actions heard together.

4.The Petition has been fixed for hearing commencing on 12 October 2020 with 10 days reserved.  The central and principal issue in the Petition concerns the existence of an alleged restructuring agreement.  The ambit of the dispute is fairly discrete. The issue also arises in the High Court Actions.  However, those Actions concern additional issues.  They are nowhere near as advanced.  Pleadings have closed.  No further steps have been taken in the Actions.  In the High Court Actions the Defendants filed a case management summons on 6 September 2019 for a hearing not earlier than 15 January 2020. Putting to one side the impression that this gives that the Defendants are in no hurry to advance the High Court Actions it seems to me that there is no sensible reason now to vacate the trial dates and leave the Petition to await the progress of the High Court Actions.  On the contrary it seems to me that resolution of the issue in the Petition is more likely than not to narrow the room for argument in the High Court Actions and hopefully (although given the animosity between the owners of the respective corporate parties this may be overly optimistic) some negotiated resolution of their dispute.

Mr William Wong SC, Mr Michael Lok and Ms Jasmine Cheung, instructed by Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum, for the petitioner (in HCCW 352/2014) and 1^st to 2^nd plaintiffs (by original action  in HCA 227/2017) and the defendants (by counterclaim in HCA 227/2017) and the plaintiff (in HCA 228/2017)

Mr Anson Wong SC and Mr Martin Kok, instructed by DLA Piper Hong Kong, for the 1^st respondent (in HCCW 352/2014) and the 3^rd, 5^th to 8^th defendants (by original action in HCA 227/2017) and the defendant (in HCA 228/2017)

Attendance of Jingtian & Gongcheng LLP, for the 1^st and 2^nd defendants (by original action in HCA 227/2017), was excused