EAA SECURITIES LTD. v. CHAN LIN MUI AND ANOTHER

EAA SECURITIES LTD. v. CHAN LIN MUI AND ANOTHER

The court struck out paragraphs 4–24 and 26–28 because they advance a positive unpleaded case of illegality, fraud or serious misconduct against the Plaintiff which is outside the issues defined by the pleadings; such evidence is therefore irrelevant to the pleaded issues, scandalous and liable to be struck out absent prior amendment of the pleadings.

Citation
EAA SECURITIES LTD. v. CHAN LIN MUI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: EAA Securities Limited; 1st Defendant: Chan Lin Mui; 2nd Defendant: Fattydad Alice Pui Yan
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 April 2006
Case Number
DCCJ4015/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (securities/debt) / Chambers Hearing on Application to Strike Out Witness Statement (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application allowed in part; specified paragraphs of the witness statement struck out
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Pleadings, Unauthorized Trading, Witness Statements, Securities and Futures Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Securities Law Criminal Law (referential) Strike Out Pleadings Unauthorized Trading Witness Statements Securities and Futures Ordinance

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EAA Securities Limited

Plaintiff

Chan Lin Mui

1st Defendant

Fattydad Alice Pui Yan

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (securities/debt) / Chambers Hearing on Application to Strike Out Witness Statement (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations of conspiracy/fraud in a witness statement can be admitted where not pleaded
  2. 2 Whether evidence going beyond a denial and advancing a positive case of illegality may be led without amendment of pleadings
  3. 3 Application of Order 18 Rule 8(1) Rules of District Court regarding pleading of fraud or illegality

Ratio Decidendi

The court struck out paragraphs 4–24 and 26–28 because they advance a positive unpleaded case of illegality, fraud or serious misconduct against the Plaintiff which is outside the issues defined by the pleadings; such evidence is therefore irrelevant to the pleaded issues, scandalous and liable to be struck out absent prior amendment of the pleadings.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; specified paragraphs of the witness statement struck out

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4 to 24 and 26 to 28 of the witness statement of Anita So filed 3 May 2005 are struck out
  • Unless either party applies to be heard on costs within 14 days, the Defendants do pay the Plaintiff costs of the application together with a certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed