Yip Kee Wai v So Kim Wah (unrep., HCA 1504/2009, [2010] HKEC 1592)

This is another decision of Mr. Registrar Lung reminding practitioners on the importance of the Timetabling Questionnaire and the Listing Questionnaire under O.25 of the Rules of High Court (Cap.4A, Sub.Leg.) and Practice Direction 5.2.

In the present case, the parties filed and served a Timetabling Questionnaire for the Case Management Summons hearing and a Listing Questionnaire, purportedly in compliance with O.25 r.1 and Practice Direction 5.2.

Mr. Registrar Lung held that the parties’ solicitors had not, in substance, observed O.25 r.1 and Practice Direction 5.2. He adjourned the Case Management Summons hearing to another date, and disallowed the costs between the parties and their respective clients.

Hong Kong Dispute Resolution Bulletin: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell HKDRB, produced in association with Clifford Chance.

This article is available in [2010] 14 HKDRB.

Faith Bright Development Ltd v Ng Kwok Kuen (unrep., HCA 9058/1999, [2010] HKEC 1594)

In this case, the parties failed to file and serve a Timetabling Questionnaire in accordance with O.25 r.1(1) of the Rules of High Court (Cap.4A, Sub.Leg.) and Practice Direction 5.2, and a mediation certificate in accordance with paragraph 8 of Practice Direction 31.

Mr. Registrar Lung adjourned the Case Management Summons hearing to another date and disallowed all costs between the parties and their respective clients.

In his judgment, Mr. Registrar Lung commented on the current approach of the court in the Case Management Summons hearing.

Hong Kong Dispute Resolution Bulletin: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell HKDRB, produced in association with Clifford Chance.

This article is available in [2010] 14 HKDRB.

Sherryknoll Enterprises Ltd v Grand Power Ltd (unrep., HCA 1599/2009, [2010] HKEC 1391)

In this case, the Plaintiff issued a Case Management Summons seeking various directions from the Court. Both parties did not file any Timetabling Questionnaires or Mediation Certificates, nor did they discuss with each other as to the progress of the case.

At the hearing of the Case Management Summons before Mr. Registrar Lung, the Plaintiff asked the Court to give directions as if it were a summons for directions under the pre-CJR regime. The Defendant did not object to the Plaintiff’s proposal.

Mr. Registrar Lung, however, refused to give any case management directions. He said that the Plaintiff’s proposal is tantamount to a “total disregard of the Civil Justice Reform and the Orders, the Rules and the Practice Directions made for the reform“. Mr. Registrar Lung adjourned the hearing of the Case Management Summons to a later date, and ordered that there be no order as to costs (given that both sides failed to comply with the new rules), and that the solicitors from both sides should not recover costs from their respective clients in respect of the hearing of the summons.

Hong Kong Dispute Resolution Bulletin: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell HKDRB, produced in association with Clifford Chance.

This article is available in [2010] 11 HKDRB.