Company a and Another v. Company C

HCCT 60/2024

[2024] HKCFI 1964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO 60 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.The Plaintiffs applied by their Originating Summons issued on 27 May 2024 (“OS”)  for an injunction to be granted to restrain the Defendant’s disposal of and dealings in its assets, pending an award in an arbitration commenced and in progress in the USA. By Order dated 20 June 2024, this Court gave directions for the filing of evidence in the OS. The Defendant was to file its evidence in opposition within 28 days (ie by 18 July 2024), and the Plaintiffs were to file their evidence in reply within 21 days thereafter.

2.On 17 July 2024, the Defendant issued a summons for an extension of 28 days to file its evidence in opposition to the OS (“Extension Summons”).

3.Prior to the hearing of the Extension Summons, the parties filed a consent summons, for 28 days to be granted to the Defendant to file evidence in support of its Extension Summons, and 28 days for the Plaintiff to file evidence in reply. The Court directed the parties to justify the order sought.  The Defendant claims that by virtue of the progress of and developments in the arbitration they required 28 days to prepare evidence to explain the extension of time sought.

4.At the hearing of the Extension Summons, this Court refused to make an order in terms of the consent summons, and ordered that unless the Defendant files its evidence in opposition to the OS by 4 pm within 21 days (ie on 15 August 2024), it be barred from adducing any evidence.

5.Parties are reminded that proceedings on the Arbitration List are conducted in accordance with the stated principles and object of section 3 of the Arbitration Ordinance, to facilitate the speedy resolution of disputes by arbitration without unnecessary expense. This Court can see no justification at all why the Defendant should have to file lengthy affidavits on facts to explain and justify an extension of time to file evidence in the OS, when submissions can easily be made. The parties, who are the same parties in the arbitration, are familiar with the facts of the case and with the fact of the progress of the arbitration. They do not need 28 days to explain the factual situation of the dispute or the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. The time can and should be better spent on preparing the evidence for the OS.

6.When parties apply to the Court for injunctive relief, they have the duty to proceed diligently and expeditiously. The delay inherent in and reflected by the consent summons totally defeats the purpose of the Plaintiffs’ application for interim and injunctive relief. If the Plaintiffs consider there is no need for the remedies sought in the OS, then the OS should be dismissed. There is no good reason at all to delay the resolution of the application for the injunction sought by the OS. In particular, parties to actions on the Arbitration List should not expect a lax or generous time table for the filing of any evidence.

7.The parties in this action should forthwith fix a date for the hearing of the adjourned OS – unless the claims are no longer pursued, in which event parties can agree on the action being dismissed.

Ms Charmaine Yuen, of PC Woo & Co, for the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs

Ms Tsang Hoi Ki, of Wellington Legal LLP, for the defendant