黃碩雄 對 何展鵬及另三人

黃碩雄 對 何展鵬及另三人

The summary judgment application was dismissed because the plaintiff's claims against the second and fourth defendants had already been struck out and the proceedings against them dismissed on 15 October 2020, so there was no obligation for those defendants to file defences; the plaintiff's non‑attendance and lack of factual basis warranted dismissal and an order for costs.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 784
Parties
Plaintiff: 黃碩雄; First Defendant: 何展鵬; Second Defendant: 侯百燊; Third Defendant: 關超坪; Fourth Defendant: 朱嘉楨薛海華律師行
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Case Number
HCA1328/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court) Summary Judgment / Strike Out Proceedings / Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 R1
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; costs awarded to defendants and to be assessed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out (order 18 R19), Service and Filing of Defence, Abuse of Process
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Court Practice Costs Assessment Summary Judgment Strike Out (order 18 R19) Service and Filing of Defence Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

黃碩雄

Plaintiff

何展鵬

First Defendant

侯百燊

Second Defendant

關超坪

Third Defendant

朱嘉楨薛海華律師行

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (high Court) Summary Judgment / Strike Out Proceedings / Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 R1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were required to file defences after prior strike‑out and dismissal of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's summary judgment application under Order 14 r1 was maintenable
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities in changing hearing dates excused plaintiff's non‑attendance or created an obligation on defendants to file defences

Ratio Decidendi

The summary judgment application was dismissed because the plaintiff's claims against the second and fourth defendants had already been struck out and the proceedings against them dismissed on 15 October 2020, so there was no obligation for those defendants to file defences; the plaintiff's non‑attendance and lack of factual basis warranted dismissal and an order for costs.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; costs awarded to defendants and to be assessed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's summary judgment application dated 2 November 2020 is dismissed
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the second and fourth defendants' costs of these proceedings to be assessed on the summary procedure