唐弋蘇 對 新卫保安服务有限公司及另一人
The strike‑out was correct because the claimant's statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the insurer and the procedural objection about the timing of the affidavit failed because the rule relied upon did not require contemporaneous filing of an affidavit with the summons.
- Citation
- [2023] HKDC 1705
- Parties
- 原告人: 唐弋蘇; 第一被告人: 新卫保安服务有限公司; 第二被告人: 中國人民保險（香港）有限公司
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 11 December 2023
- Case Number
- DCPI4297/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Injury Claim / Appeal Against Strike Out Order and Stay Application
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; stay application refused; strike‑out order upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out, Insurer Liability, Employer's Liability, Pleading Sufficiency, Affidavit Requirements, Costs Assessment
- Source Language
- CH
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
唐弋蘇
原告人
新卫保安服务有限公司
第一被告人
中國人民保險（香港）有限公司
第二被告人
Procedural Posture
Injury Claim / Appeal Against Strike Out Order and Stay Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Can an employee sue the employer's insurer directly?
- 2 Was strike‑out under Order 18 r.19 proper?
- 3 Does Order 32 r.1 require affidavit to be filed with the summons in this context?
Ratio Decidendi
The strike‑out was correct because the claimant's statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the insurer and the procedural objection about the timing of the affidavit failed because the rule relied upon did not require contemporaneous filing of an affidavit with the summons.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; stay application refused; strike‑out order upheld.
Orders
- 撤銷原告人就聆案官2023年10月24日的命令所提出的上訴
- 撤銷原告人2023年11月17日發出的傳票
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment