Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corp Ltd (香港平民屋宇有限公司) v Yan Kwok Yip (甄國業) & Ors (No 2) [2025] 4 HKC 1003, [2024] HKDC 2110 (Lydia Leung, Christopher KH To)
Lydia Leung and Christopher To represented the defendants, Kwan Wai Kin, Tam Wai Lan, 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 (No 2) [2025] 4 HKC 1003, [2024] HKDC 2110.
The plaintiff company and 13 defendants respectively in 13 actions held the first case management conference in the District Court. Some defendants applied for a stay of proceedings pending the result of the judicial review application in the High Court (to be heard in 4 months’ time); some other defendants, despite not having applied for judicial review or a stay, supported the stay; some defendants had not yet filed their defence, but they would apply for leave to apply for judicial review and might rely on the same public law ground as one of the defences to the actions. The plaintiff opposed the stay and applied for an expedited trial.
Held, dismissing both the defendants’ and the plaintiff’s applications:
Application for stay
(1) The legal principles for case-management stay were fact-sensitive. The Court could not agree with a general legal principle that whenever there was a judicial review, the private law action must be stayed. None of the defendants could confirm that his only defence was the public law ground in the judicial review. This was an important consideration because, if the present proceedings continued, under the principle of res judicata, the defendants should raise all defences that he could possibly raise. If the proceedings in the District Court were stayed until the result of the judicial review was available, regardless of the result of the judicial review, the defences to the actions in the District Court would still very likely require determination in the District Court. The balance of convenience should be in favour of allowing the proceedings to continue. Regarding the fairness as between the parties, the parties must have wanted their legal rights to be determined as soon as possible. As the issues in the judicial review were different from those in the District Court actions, whether who won or who lost in the judicial review did not mean the issues in the District Court actions did not require determination; therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue would ensure that the Court’s procedures were used in a logical, fair and cost-efficient manner. Re Chime Corp Ltd [2005] HKCU 361, (HCMP 4146/2001, Kwan J, 11 March 2005, unreported), Lok Man Sin v Lam Chi Wing [2019] HKCFI 56 ; [2019] HKCU 98 and Linfield Ltd v Taoho Design Architects Ltd [2002] 2 HKC 204 applied. Manchester City Council v Cochrane [1999] 1 WLR 809 ; [1999] LGR 626 ; (1999) 31 HLR 810 considered. Avon County Council v Buscott [1988] QB 656 ; [1988] 1 All ER 841 ; [1988] 2 WLR 788; North British Housing Association v Matthews [2005] 2 All ER 667 ; [2005] 1 WLR 3133; Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] 2 AC 104 ; [2011] 1 All ER 285 ; [2010] 3 WLR 1441; Anthony Sherman v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs [2017] UKFTT 152; Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder [1985] AC 461 ; [1984] 3 All ER 976 ; [1984] 3 WLR 1254 and Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council [2006] 2 AC 465 ; [2006] 4 All ER 128 ; [2006] 2 WLR 570 distinguished (paras 17-46).
Application for expedited trial
(2) The date of hearing for the judicial review would be 25 April 2025. The present actions could only be tried in around May or June 2025; this could not be said to be much expedited. There were too many uncertainties at this stage; for example, in some actions, the plaintiff had applied for amendments to its Statement of Claim, and the defendants intended to amend their Defence. Making directions for trial would exert time pressure on the defendants, cause prejudice to affording them adequate time for trial preparation, and prejudicing their right to fair trial. If a second case management conference would be held only after the hearing for the judicial review, the District Court should have more detailed information to consider whether an expedited trial would be required. The Court considered making directions for expedited trial inappropriate at this stage; fixing the dates for pre-trial review and trial would also be inappropriate. Qianhai Xinhuakang Financial Holdings (Shenzhen) Ltd v Chen Jiarong [2018] HKCFI 2113 ; [2018] HKCU 3205 applied (paras 47-53).
[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKC.]
