Samuel Tak Lee v. Tsang Chiu Wing Florence

HCA 566/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 566 OF 2010

_______________

(by original action)

_______________

(by counterclaim)

_______________

_____________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_____________________________________

1.On 6 December 2012, I refused the application by the plaintiff by counterclaim for an order staying the assessment of damages pending the handing down of the judgment by the Court of Appeal in CACV154/2012 and CACV166/2012. I further gave directions for the future conduct of the case.

2.These are the reasons for my decision.

3.The background and procedural history of the counterclaim can be gleaned from the Reasons for Decision of Saunders J dated 17 October 2011, which I shall not repeat here.

4.Although the plaintiff has advanced six points in her submissions, they boil down essentially to one point, which is this.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal may have an impact on the assessment because the Court may reverse the findings made by Saunders J in her favour in the ancillary relief proceedings, which may well reduce her counterclaim significantly.  It would be disproportionate to ask her to spend significant costs to purse her counterclaim now when there are so many variables and unknowns.  However, as rightly submitted by Mr Coleman, SC, for the 1^st defendant by the counterclaim, the counterclaim, as presently pleaded, is not dependent on the result of the appeal.  That being the case, the assessment can proceed quite independently of the appeal.

5.Further, looking at the procedural history of the counterclaim, as outlined by Saunders J in his Reasons for Decision, I am clearly of the view that the assessment should be expedited without further delay.

6.The plaintiff complained that she did not have all the necessary documents to fully particularize her counterclaim.  She might need to seek discovery from the defendants.  That may well be the case but that is not a ground for further delaying the proceedings.

Mr Robert Pang, SC and Mr Norman Nip, instructed by Stephenson Harwood, for the plaintiff in the original action and the 1^st defendant in the counterclaim

The defendant in the original action and the plaintiff in the counterclaim appeared in person

Mr Russell Coleman, SC, instructed by Stevenson, Wong & Co, for the 2^nd defendant in the counterclaim