西安民生集團股份有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS

西安民生集團股份有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS

The 3rd defendant's re-amended counterclaim was struck out because permitting it would relitigate issues already finally determined on multiple occasions; the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is vexatious and an abuse of process, and the Court of Final Appeal's decision excluded D3 from liability such that any repayment claim must be pursued against D1 and D5 rather than the plaintiffs/P2.

Citation
西安民生集團股份有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; 3rd Defendant: Mr Kong (3rd Defendant); Defendant: D1; Defendant: D5
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Case Number
HCA2183/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Unjust Enrichment/loan Dispute / Strike Out Application of 3rd Defendant's Counterclaim Remitted by Court of Final Appeal
Outcome
3rd defendant's re-amended counterclaim struck out and dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Counterclaim, Strike Out Application
Source Language
EN
Civil Equity Procedural Law Restitution Unjust Enrichment Res Judicata Abuse of Process Counterclaim +1 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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Mr Kong (3rd Defendant)

3rd Defendant

D1

Defendant

D5

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Unjust Enrichment/loan Dispute / Strike Out Application of 3rd Defendant's Counterclaim Remitted by Court of Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd defendant's re-amended counterclaim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim is barred by res judicata and/or is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd defendant has any enforceable claim against the plaintiffs/P2 or only against D1 and D5

Ratio Decidendi

The 3rd defendant's re-amended counterclaim was struck out because permitting it would relitigate issues already finally determined on multiple occasions; the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is vexatious and an abuse of process, and the Court of Final Appeal's decision excluded D3 from liability such that any repayment claim must be pursued against D1 and D5 rather than the plaintiffs/P2.

Court Disposition

3rd defendant's re-amended counterclaim struck out and dismissed.

Orders

  • 3rd defendant's re-amended counterclaim struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being vexatious and an abuse of process
  • Counterclaim dismissed with costs, including costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed