LAU KAK v. CHEUNG MO KIT

LAU KAK v. CHEUNG MO KIT

The 1995 Action was dismissed because the alleged tainted matters were not directly material to the Court of Appeal's decision (the central credibility finding about the $500,000 payment stood independent of the 5th affirmation) and no new evidence discovered since the prior judgment was put before the court to raise a reasonable probability of success; accordingly the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process.

Citation
LAU KAK v. CHEUNG MO KIT
Parties
Plaintiff: Lau Kak; Defendant: Cheung Mo Kit
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 1995
Case Number
HCA10016/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Action to Set Aside Judgment for Fraud / Striking Out Application (dismissal) Heard and Decision Delivered
Outcome
1995 Action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment (o.14), Perjury Allegations, Materiality of Tainted Evidence, Requirement of New Evidence After Judgment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Fraud on the Court Appeals Res Judicata Costs Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Abuse of Process Summary Judgment (o.14) +3 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lau Kak

Plaintiff

Cheung Mo Kit

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action to Set Aside Judgment for Fraud / Striking Out Application (dismissal) Heard and Decision Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matters alleged to be tainted were directly material to the Court of Appeal's judgment
  2. 2 Whether evidence discovered since the former judgment is a pre‑requisite to an action to set aside for fraud
  3. 3 Whether the 1995 action discloses a reasonable cause of action or is frivolous and vexatious

Ratio Decidendi

The 1995 Action was dismissed because the alleged tainted matters were not directly material to the Court of Appeal's decision (the central credibility finding about the $500,000 payment stood independent of the 5th affirmation) and no new evidence discovered since the prior judgment was put before the court to raise a reasonable probability of success; accordingly the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

1995 Action dismissed.

Orders

  • 1995 Action dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court
  • Costs awarded to Defendant (order nisi); basis of taxation to be argued on a date to be fixed