Practice Direction 5.7 provides that the parties may apply to the Court to assign a case to a trial judge if the trial is likely to last 15 days or longer (“Assignment Application”). This practice was extended to cases of 10 to 14 days by a letter from Jeremy Poon J (as the CJHC then was) in 2013. A significant advantage of such assignment is that all interlocutory applications in the action will be listed before the assigned trial judge.
In Liao Chen Toh v Loyal International Enterprises Co Ltd [2025] 5 HKLRD 153, Au-Yeung J (Listing Judge) handed down a detailed decision on the operation of the case assignment procedure under PD 5.7. The underlying dispute concerned the Loyal Group, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of chemicals, petrochemicals and plastics, and involved claims between two brothers (“Elder Brother” and “Younger Brother”) over various Mainland subsidiaries and sums of more than US$92 million. The Younger Brother’s camp had previously obtained against the Elder Brother’s camp (a) a proprietary injunction to preserve the disputed funds, (b) a mandatory injunction to return all corporate items and information and (c) a further disclosure order to facilitate the tracing of the disputed funds.
As to the timing of an Assignment Application, PD 5.7 provided that, where the parties agree that the trial is likely to last 15 days or longer, any party may apply to have the case assigned to a trial judge. Where all the parties to an action are not in agreement that the trial is likely to last 15 days or longer, or one or more of the parties is unrepresented, any party may apply at any time after the close of pleadings to have the matter assigned to a trial Judge.
In this case, the Elder Brother’s camp issued a Counterclaim to Counterclaim and argued that it must be served on all the defendants to the Counterclaim to Counterclaim before pleadings could be deemed to be closed. The judge rejected this argument and held that the close of pleadings is determined by RHC O.18, r.20, which only referred to the filing a reply or defence to counterclaim. Pleadings subsequent to a reply do not affect the close of pleadings. In the premises, it was not premature for the Younger Brother’s camp to issue the Assignment Application.
As to the documents to be submitted for an Assignment Application, the parties should prepare one joint statement only. Any major disagreements over the facts and issues can be recorded in that statement. The statement should set out in narrative form all parties’ versions in a fair and succinct manner, identifying the issues only in broad terms.
The judge ordered the Elder Brother’s camp to pay costs of the Assignment Application as a result of its unsuccessful opposition.
Read the judgment here at: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=171671&currpage=T
Mr Justin Lam was instructed by Robin Bridge & John Liu for the Younger Brother’s camp.
