多宗相關案件應否合併審理？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 及另一宗案件 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：朱芬齡法官 (Hon Chu J) - 判決日期：2008年4月10日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及四宗在高院合併審理的訴訟（HCA1957/2005, HCA2196/2005, HCA886/2007, HCA714/2007），以及一宗相關訴訟（HCA2134/2005）。訴訟雙方為兩個公司集團：Big Island集團（原告方）和Wu Yi集團（被告方）。這些訴訟源於兩集團在1999年至2004年間的商業往來和合作。本判決處理兩項申請：一是Wu Yi方根據《高等法院規則》命令第4條規則第9款（O.4 r.9）提出的指示申請，要求將HCA714/2007與其他三宗案件合併審理或緊接審理；二是Big Island方提出的剔除（striking out）對方答覆書（Rejoinder）部分段落的申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議有二。首先，Big Island方申請剔除Wu Yi方答覆書中的某些段落，理由是這些段落不構成合理的訴訟因由或答辯。其次，Wu Yi方申請將HCA714/2007與其他三宗案件合併或順序審理，Big Island方反對，認為案件之間沒有共同爭議點，且會延誤審訊。 ### 判決理由 法官駁回剔除申請，認為該申請提出過晚，且被申請剔除的段落並非明顯沒有合理訴訟因由。法官強調，剔除申請應在最明確的情況下才獲准。至於合併審理申請，法官認為五宗案件涉及兩集團在同一時期內的商業往來，證人重疊，且證人（特別是Ben Lee）的可信性對所有案件的裁決至關重要。為避免不一致的裁決、節省時間和成本，並促進有效的案件管理，應由同一法官順序審理所有案件。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了Poon Lai Bing v. Gold Dragon Limited t/a as Club Paris & Anor (unreported) CACV136/2007，該案例指出剔除申請即使延遲提出，也應在最明確的情況下才獲准。此案例支持了法官駁回剔除申請的決定。 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回了Big Island方剔除答覆書段落的申請，並命令Big Island方支付相關訟費。法官批准了Wu Yi方關於案件管理（case management）的申請，指示HCA1957/2005、HCA2196/2005、HCA886/2007、HCA714/2007及HCA2134/2005應由同一法官順序審理，並指派一名雙語法官處理。相關訟費為訴訟因由費用（costs in the cause）。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在多宗相關訴訟中，法院在案件管理方面的權力，特別是當案件涉及相同當事人、共同事實背景和重疊證人時，順序審理有助於避免不一致的裁決並提高司法效率。同時，判決也重申了剔除申請應及時提出，且僅在案情最明確時才獲准的原則。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED and another case - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chu J - Date of Judgment: 10 April 2008 ### Factual Background This case involves four actions consolidated in the High Court (HCA1957/2005, HCA2196/2005, HCA886/2007, HCA714/2007) and a related action (HCA2134/2005). The parties are two corporate groups: the Big Island group (plaintiffs) and the Wu Yi group (defendants). These actions arose from business dealings and cooperation between the two groups from 1999 to 2004. This judgment addresses two applications: first, an application by the Wu Yi parties for directions under Order 4 rule 9 of the Rules of the High Court (O.4 r.9) to try HCA714/2007 concurrently or immediately after the other three actions; second, an application by the Big Island parties to strike out certain paragraphs in the Rejoinder. ### Key Legal Issues There are two main legal issues. First, the Big Island parties applied to strike out certain paragraphs in the Wu Yi parties' Rejoinder, arguing they disclosed no reasonable cause of action or defence. Second, the Wu Yi parties applied for HCA714/2007 to be tried concurrently or sequentially with the other three actions, which the Big Island parties opposed, arguing a lack of common issues and potential trial delay. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge dismissed the striking out application, finding it was made too late and the paragraphs were not plainly and obviously unsustainable. The judge emphasized that striking out should only be granted in the clearest circumstances. Regarding the concurrent trial application, the judge held that the five actions involved business dealings between the two groups during the same period, with overlapping witnesses, and the credibility of witnesses (especially Ben Lee) was crucial to all cases. To avoid inconsistent findings, save time and costs, and promote effective case management, all actions should be tried sequentially by the same judge. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Poon Lai Bing v. Gold Dragon Limited t/a as Club Paris & Anor (unreported) CACV136/2007, which stated that a striking out application, even if delayed, should only be acceded to in the clearest circumstances. This precedent supported the judge's decision to dismiss the striking out application. ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed the Big Island parties' application to strike out paragraphs from the Rejoinder and ordered them to pay the relevant costs. The judge granted the Wu Yi parties' application for case management directions, ordering that HCA1957/2005, HCA2196/2005, HCA886/2007, HCA714/2007, and HCA2134/2005 be tried sequentially by the same judge, and a bilingual judge be assigned. The costs for this application were ordered to be costs in the cause. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the court's power in case management for multiple related actions, particularly when they involve the same parties, common factual backgrounds, and overlapping witnesses. Sequential trials help avoid inconsistent findings and improve judicial efficiency. The judgment also reiterates the principle that striking out applications should be made promptly and only granted in the clearest of cases. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.