CY FOUNDATION GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. CHENG CHEE TOCK THEODORE

CY FOUNDATION GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. CHENG CHEE TOCK THEODORE

The court refused to strike out the Statement of Claim in whole because the Consent Order did not prevent the 1st–3rd Plaintiffs from pursuing their own claims in Hong Kong and paragraph 18 with its particulars sufficiently disclosed arguable causes of action; however the court struck out specific irrelevant or prejudicial allegations (last sentence of paragraph 6(4); last sentence of paragraph 9 and paragraphs 9(1)–9(5); paragraph 24; paragraph 26) and ordered a limited amendment and timetable for continued proceedings.

Citation
CY FOUNDATION GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. CHENG CHEE TOCK THEODORE
Parties
1st Plaintiff: C Y Foundation Group Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: 2nd Plaintiff (unnamed Hong Kong company); 3rd Plaintiff: 3rd Plaintiff (unnamed Hong Kong company); Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 July 2012
Case Number
HCMP1091/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/company) Delivery Up, Conversion and Breaches of Agent Duties / Interlocutory/chambers Application to Strike Out (originating Summons Converted to Writ)
Outcome
Application partially granted: strike out specific prejudicial/irrelevant paragraphs; remainder of Statement of Claim stands; overall strike out dismissed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Delivery Up, Conversion, Legal Representative (prc), Pleading Particulars, Scandalous Pleadings
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Agency Law Civil Property Remedies Cross Border/foreign Proceedings Strike Out Abuse of Process Delivery Up +4 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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C Y Foundation Group Limited

1st Plaintiff

2nd Plaintiff (unnamed Hong Kong company)

2nd Plaintiff

3rd Plaintiff (unnamed Hong Kong company)

3rd Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/company) Delivery Up, Conversion and Breaches of Agent Duties / Interlocutory/chambers Application to Strike Out (originating Summons Converted to Writ)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings amount to an abuse of process by litigating the 4th–8th Plaintiffs' claims contrary to the Consent Order
  3. 3 Whether parallel Mainland proceedings preclude Hong Kong proceedings by 1st–3rd Plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out the Statement of Claim in whole because the Consent Order did not prevent the 1st–3rd Plaintiffs from pursuing their own claims in Hong Kong and paragraph 18 with its particulars sufficiently disclosed arguable causes of action; however the court struck out specific irrelevant or prejudicial allegations (last sentence of paragraph 6(4); last sentence of paragraph 9 and paragraphs 9(1)–9(5); paragraph 24; paragraph 26) and ordered a limited amendment and timetable for continued proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application partially granted: strike out specific prejudicial/irrelevant paragraphs; remainder of Statement of Claim stands; overall strike out dismissed.

Orders

  • Strike out last sentence of paragraph 6(4) of the Statement of Claim
  • Strike out last sentence of paragraph 9 and paragraphs 9(1)–9(5) of the Statement of Claim