Steadfast International Ltd v. Tuenbo Co Ltd and Others

HCA 2095/2016 & HCA 566/2019
(Heard together)
[2021] HKCFI 2742

HCA 2095/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2095 OF 2016

_________________

____________________

AND

HCA 566/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 566 OF 2019

____________________

____________________

(Heard Together)

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Leung in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  21 July 2021

Date of Decision: 21 July 2021

____________________

DECISION

____________________

1.The only difference for today’s purpose is whether the defendant in the 2019 action should have stay of the time for filing and service of the defence until the determination of the 2019 summons. I do not agree that such time should be stayed and that the defendant be allowed to withhold the filing of the defence.

2.The circumstances of this case are such that whether and, if yes, what other substantive defence in the 2019 action would likely be relevant to the question of whether there should be an order for the preliminary trial of the issue of authority.  In particular, there are two questions: first, whether the issue of authority is the only defence or whether there are other substantive defence, the trial of which may be said to be saved by the preliminary trial of the issue of authority; second, whether the other substantive defence is so intertwined with the authority issue so that preliminary trial of the authority issue will not materially differ from a full trial. 

3.In the circumstances, I give further directions as follows (and I am using the proposed directions set out in Mr Lee’s skeleton argument subject to the necessary adjustments).

4.For the 2016 summons, there will be leave to the plaintiff to file and serve affidavit in opposition to the 2016 summons within 28 days of this order.  There will be leave to the 2^nd to the 4^th and 6^th to 7^th defendants to file and serve affidavits in reply, if any, within 28 days thereafter.  There will be no further affidavit without leave of the court.  The 2016 summons shall be adjourned to a date to be fixed in consultation with counsel’s diaries for substantive argument, with 1 day reserved.  The 2016 summons shall be heard together with the 2019 summons.  Costs are reserved.

5.In respect of the 2019 summons, there will be leave to the plaintiff to file and serve affidavit in opposition to the 2019 summons within 28 days.  There will be leave to the defendants to file and serve affidavit in reply, if any, within 28 days thereafter.  There will be no further affidavit without leave of the court.  The 2019 summons shall be adjourned to a date to be fixed in consultation with counsel’s diaries for substantive argument, with 1 day reserved.  The 2019 summons shall be heard together with the 2016 summons.  Costs are reserved. 

[Discussion re filing of defence and further affidavit]

6.For the purpose of the 2019 action, the direction will also include that the time for filing and service of the defence be extended to 28 days from today, and time to run during vacation.

Mr Cheng Sui Kit, of Simmons & Simmons, for the plaintiff in HCA 2095/2016

F Zimmern & Co, for the 1^st defendant in HCA 2095/2016, absent

Mr Brian Lee, instructed by Edmund Cheung & Co, for the 2^nd to 4^th, 6^th and 7^th defendants in HCA 2095/2016 and the 1^st to 4^th defendants in HCA 566/2019

The 5^th defendant in HCA 2095/2016 was not represented and did not appear

Mr Kenny Lin and Ms Natalie So, instructed by Jones Day, for the plaintiff in HCA 566/2019