Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd (Successor Corporation To Sin Hua Bank Ltd) v. Sze See in His Own Name and Formerly t/a Shum Fei (China HK) Trading Co and Another

HCA 2383/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2383 OF 2008

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

Coram: Before Madam Registrar Au-Yeung in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 15 July 2009

Date of Judgment: 15 July 2009

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.A consent summons was filed yesterday afternoon setting out the case management directions pursuant to Order 32, rule 11.  (The proper reference should have been to Order 25, rule 1(1A).)  It was regular on its face and set out the usual provisions for discovery, filing of witnesses statements, seeking of counsel’s advice, taking out of interlocutory applications thereafter and fixing a date for a case management conference.

2.However, I discovered upon reading the Defendant’s timetabling questionnaire that their intention to amend the defence and seek further and better particulars was not reflected in the consent summons as part of the directions.

3.At the hearing today, the Defendants’ solicitors clarified that the Plaintiff had answered their request for further and better particulars.  They also saw no present need to amend their defence subject to any advice that counsel might give.

4.Accordingly, I gave an order in terms of the consent summons subject to slight revisions and addition of the usual terms in connection with the fixing of a date for the case management conference and mediation.

Some General Points

5.I greatly appreciate the cooperation between lawyers in dealing with as many issues as possible before a case management summons hearing.  I take this opportunity to remind practitioners to include all proposed directions set out in the timetabling questionnaire in the case management summons.  It is important because if a party sees the need to, say, amend pleadings or take out applications at the case management stage but fails to do so in good time, his application at the case management conference or subsequent stage may be too late.  According to paragraph 31 of PD 5.2, the later in time and the closer to a trial date an application is made, the less likely it is for the Court to entertain it.

6.In dealing with a case management summons or consent summons for directions, a Master will review the file, focusing his/her attention on the pleadings.  The parties’ respective views in the timetabling questionnaires (or arguments if there is a hearing) are considered with a view to giving as many directions as possible on the first call-over day.

7.Parties are sometimes able to file a consent summons as to the timetable before the call-over.  This should be done in good time to enable a Master to raise requisitions if necessary.  If a party who has indicated a wish in his timetabling questionnaire to take out an application decides not to pursue it, he should so inform the Master by a cover letter stating the reasons.  Where the Master is left in doubt and a hearing is called for, the party in default runs the risk of having to bear costs.

Mr. D. Chiu of Messrs. Chow, Griffiths & Chan for Plaintiff.

Mr. A. Wong of Messrs. Huen & Partners for Defendants.