 was recently invited to lead a session at the Hong Kong Common Law & Dispute Resolution Practical Training Course in Xi’an – a leading city in the “One Belt, One Road” initiative.

Co-organised by the Hong Kong International Legal Talents Training Academy and Shannxi Province Lawyers Association and bringing together 80 legal professionals from across Mainland China, the course introduced practical and operational aspects of the Hong Kong common law system and international arbitration.

During his presentation, Jonathan discussed the rules of evidence in Hong Kong and common law advocacy skills, and delivered an interactive demonstration with the audience on examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses.

Special thanks to the Hong Kong International Legal Talents Training Academy for the invitation and Shannxi Province Lawyers Association for their hospitality and arrangement throughout the event.

JB Management Ltd & Ors v Lau Lik Wah David & Ors

[2025] HKCFI 2702, the plaintiffs (part of the Lane Crawford Joyce Group of companies) sued an ex-employee and his companies as regards a fraudulent scheme involving over HK$81 million of unlawful transfers for his personal purposes over a span of 10 years.

The plaintiffs applied for partial summary judgment focused on direct receipts of funds by the 1

 defendants, on the basis of unjust enrichment and constructive trust.

Although it was accepted the Court may not have full clarity on the fund flow, DHCJ Andrew Li agreed that the “irresistible inference” was that the 1

 defendant was the ultimate beneficiary of funds, on the basis that (i) the defendants had not produced contrary evidence; and (ii) the 1

 defendant had control over the companies, and was found to be the “sole mastermind” behind the fraud (§§36-40).

Notwithstanding the remarks of Anthony Chan J in 

Skillsoft Asia Pacific Pty v Ambow Education Holding Ltd (No. 2)

 [2016] 1 HKLRD 1052 that it was generally not desirable for litigants to fragment their cases into parts and to advance them as they please, the learned judge emphasised that in appropriate cases (such as this one), the underlying objectives of the CJR are achieved by allowing remaining issues to be crystallised (saving the Court’s time in due course), and ensuring defendants cannot delay the inevitable by seeking to litigate a meritless defence. It can also make clear the futility of the defence to “provide a reality check as to the way [the] action should be conducted going forward” (§§54, 57).

The learned judge further held that issue estoppel is not a concern if there is no substance on the defences being advanced (§56).

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Partial Summary Judgments Against Meritless Defences – Proper Purposes and Proportionality

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Enhancing Common Law Understanding and Advocacy Skills in Xi’an

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New