SOEMARTO SULISTIO AND ANOTHER v. STUKAN, YETTY FANG AND OTHERS

SOEMARTO SULISTIO AND ANOTHER v. STUKAN, YETTY FANG AND OTHERS

The second unless order required substantive (not merely timely) compliance; the plaintiffs provided predominantly illusory, vague or reserved answers that failed to particularise core allegations (mental/medical conditions, instances of threats, persons involved); plaintiffs did not apply for relief from sanction or discharge the burden to justify non-compliance and gave no adequate explanation; the statement of claim was therefore strikeable as revealing no reasonable cause, being scandalous/vexatious/abusive and not curable by amendment; accordingly the sanction in the unless order was properly invoked and the Master's order striking out was upheld.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 292
Parties
1st Plaintiff: SOEMARTO SULISTIO; 2nd Plaintiff: RUDY SULISTIO; 1st Defendant: STUKAN, YETTY FANG; 2nd Defendant: SULISTIO YENA; 3rd Defendant: HINO YENNY SULISTIO; 4th Defendant: SULISTIO EDY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Case Number
HCAP10/2018
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Appeal to Judge in Chambers Against Master's Order Striking Out Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Hui's order of 23 August 2019 upheld
Legal Topics
Unless Orders, Striking Out for Want of Particulars, Relief From Sanction, Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Wasted Costs
Source Language
EN
Probate Civil Procedure Wills and Estates Professional Negligence (alleged) Unless Orders Striking Out for Want of Particulars Relief From Sanction Testamentary Capacity +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SOEMARTO SULISTIO

1st Plaintiff

RUDY SULISTIO

2nd Plaintiff

STUKAN, YETTY FANG

1st Defendant

SULISTIO YENA

2nd Defendant

HINO YENNY SULISTIO

3rd Defendant

SULISTIO EDY

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Appeal to Judge in Chambers Against Master's Order Striking Out Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second unless order required substantive (not merely timely) compliance
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs breached the second unless order by providing illusory or inadequate particulars
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs discharged the burden to obtain relief from sanction under Order 2 rules 4 and 5

Ratio Decidendi

The second unless order required substantive (not merely timely) compliance; the plaintiffs provided predominantly illusory, vague or reserved answers that failed to particularise core allegations (mental/medical conditions, instances of threats, persons involved); plaintiffs did not apply for relief from sanction or discharge the burden to justify non-compliance and gave no adequate explanation; the statement of claim was therefore strikeable as revealing no reasonable cause, being scandalous/vexatious/abusive and not curable by amendment; accordingly the sanction in the unless order was properly invoked and the Master's order striking out was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Hui's order of 23 August 2019 upheld

Orders

  • Statement of claim struck out and action dismissed
  • Costs to defendants to be assessed on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel