Cheung Kee Fung Cheung Construction Co Ltd v. Thorn Security (Hong Kong) Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 52/2004 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 August 2004 before Hon Reyes J.
Procedure — Arbitration — Application to consolidate three arbitration proceedings under section 6B of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 341) — Plaintiff sought consolidation of arbitrations involving three defendants at varying stages — First and second arbitrations nearly ready for hearing, third at initial stage — Plaintiff delayed progressing arbitration with Housing Authority and failed to apply for consolidation sooner — Risk of inconsistent judgments due to Plaintiff's own delay — Consolidation at this late stage would cause substantial delay (12 to 18 months) and disproportionate expense to defendants relative to their claims — Court refused consolidation application — Emphasizes importance of timely application for consolidation to avoid prejudice and delay.
Legal issues: Application for consolidation
Outcome: Application for consolidation refused.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCCT000052/2004 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 ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Reyes J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 20 August 2004 Date of Judgment: 20 August 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.
Representation: Ms Roxanne Ismail, instructed by Messrs Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, for the Plaintiff Mr Anthony Chow, instructed by Messrs Au Yeung, Cheng, Ho & Tin, for the 1st Defendant Mr Geoffrey Shau, of Messrs Deacons, for the 2nd Defendant Mr Boyle and Mr K K Cheung, of Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, for the 3rd Defendant |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 52/2004