Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corp Ltd (香港平民屋宇有限公司) v Yan Kwok Yip (甄國業) & Ors [2025] 1 HKC 1112, [2024] HKDC 1588
Lydia Leung and Christopher KH To represented the defendants, Kwan Wai Kin, Wong Kwai Wing Mango, and Fung Tak Lok, respectively in DCCJ 5509/2023, DCCJ 5614/2023 and DCCJ 39/2024, in Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corp Ltd (香港平民屋宇有限公司) v Yan Kwok Yip (甄國業) & Ors [2025] 1 HKC 1112, [2024] HKDC 1588.
As the plaintiff company and 13 defendants respectively in 13 cases were willing to participate in a Case Settlement Conference, the Registrar of the District Court directed all proceedings unrelated to Case Settlement Conference be stayed until the Court ordered otherwise. After attending two hearings of the Case Settlement Conference before the Registrar, the parties could not reach a settlement. The Registrar ordered the plaintiff’s application to restore the stayed proceedings be dismissed (see [2024] HKDC 1383, [2024] HKDC 1386, [2024] HKDC 1387, [2024] HKDC 1389, [2024] HKDC 1390, [2024] HKDC 1391, [2024] HKDC 1392, [2024] HKDC 1393, [2024] HKDC 1394, [2024] HKDC 1395, [2024] HKDC 1396, [2024] HKDC 1397 and [2024] HKDC 1398). The plaintiff appealed to a judge of the District Court, on the ground that it did not (and did not intend to) apply for restoration of proceedings. Meanwhile, the plaintiff had reached settlement with two defendants respectively in two cases, but not in the remaining 11 cases, in which the plaintiff was unwilling to continue its attendance at the Case Settlement Conference, although some defendants suggested to hold a third hearing of the Case Settlement Conference. Further, the Director of Legal Aid had filed a memorandum that one of the defendants had applied for legal aid (for which a legal aid stay applied to the proceedings relating to that defendant); and some other defendants applied to stay the proceedings in the District Court, pending the resolution of judicial review proceedings in the Court of First Instance.
Held, hearing the 13 cases together, quashing the Registrar’s order; and other than the two cases in which settlement had been reached, ordering the Case Settlement Conference of the remaining 11 cases be terminated, and their Case Management Conference be arranged:
(1) Since the plaintiff did not apply for restoration of proceedings, the Court did not need to consider whether the Registrar’s order should be made, or to examine the grounds of appeal raised by the plaintiff. The Court quashed the Registrar’s order. A Case Settlement Conference could be held only with the parties’ consent. As one of them did not wish to continue, the Court decided to terminate the Case Settlement Conference, and, in accordance with the Guidance Note for Case Settlement Conference in Civil Cases in the District Court, to make directions to progress the case to the next stage for case management. CSFK v HWH [2020] 3 HKC 64, [2020] 2 HKLRD 586, [2020] HKFLR 318, [2020] HKCA 207 and AB v MAW [2017] 1 HKC 141, [2017] 1 HKLRD 385, [2016] HKFLR 525 considered (paras 39-51).
(2) The summonses taken out by some defendants to stay the proceedings temporarily were made not for the purpose of settlement. These applications would be most likely to affect other cases, and the parties had not yet reached a consensus in respect of case management. The Court should not deal with contested interlocutory applications at the Case Settlement Conference. As the summonses that involved case management issues, the correct practice was, in accordance with the Guidance Note for Case Settlement Conference in Civil Cases in the District Court, to progress the case to the next stage, and leave them and other pending applications to be heard before another master or a judge, which would be more appropriate (paras 14-18, 52-57).
[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKC.]
