CHENG HUNG KIT v. JIM YIU MING

CHENG HUNG KIT v. JIM YIU MING

The statement of claim was struck out because on its face it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of confidence: the confidential information was pleaded in vague, open‑ended and non‑specific terms; there was no sufficiently pleaded unauthorised use or disclosure of particular confidential information; the pleading contained many irrelevant allegations of duty of care and unpleaded losses; and no amendment or further particulars were proffered to cure these fundamental defects.

Citation
CHENG HUNG KIT v. JIM YIU MING
Parties
Applicant (plaintiff): CHENG HUNG KIT; Defendant (appellant): JIM YIU MING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2016
Case Number
HCA2037/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Registrar's Refusal to Strike Out Statement of Claim Under Order 18 R19(1)(a) / Decision on Appeal in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; statement of claim struck out under Order 18 r19(1)(a); action not dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Breach of Confidence, Fiduciary Duty, Injunction, Particularity of Pleadings, Conflict of Interest, Amendment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Professional Negligence Confidentiality Law Strike Out Breach of Confidence Fiduciary Duty Injunction +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHENG HUNG KIT

Applicant (plaintiff)

JIM YIU MING

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Registrar's Refusal to Strike Out Statement of Claim Under Order 18 R19(1)(a) / Decision on Appeal in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under Order 18 r19(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the confidential information was pleaded with sufficient particularity and specificity
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings improperly mixed non-fiduciary duty of care allegations with breach of confidence/fiduciary duty claims

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim was struck out because on its face it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of confidence: the confidential information was pleaded in vague, open‑ended and non‑specific terms; there was no sufficiently pleaded unauthorised use or disclosure of particular confidential information; the pleading contained many irrelevant allegations of duty of care and unpleaded losses; and no amendment or further particulars were proffered to cure these fundamental defects.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; statement of claim struck out under Order 18 r19(1)(a); action not dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's statement of claim filed on 31 January 2012 together with the further and better particulars given on 18 June 2013 and 14 October 2014 are struck out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a).
  • Costs here and below will be to the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.