CHAN FUN CHU v. AEVITAS SECURITIES LTD formerly known as LAERTES SECURITIES CO LTD

CHAN FUN CHU v. AEVITAS SECURITIES LTD formerly known as LAERTES SECURITIES CO LTD

The impugned portion of paragraph 10 (excluding the first sentence) is irrelevant to the pleaded issues, constitutes scandalous wide-ranging allegations lacking particulars, and would prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial; it must be struck out. The Plaintiffs' Respondents' Notice to cross-appeal was dismissed because there was no appealable order and the appeal is by way of rehearing.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2995
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHAN SHING CHOI; 2nd Plaintiff: CHAN FUN CHU; 1st Defendant: KOO MOO YU; 2nd Defendant: KOO MOO YU formerly trading as LAERTES SECURITIES COMPANY; 3rd Defendant: AEVITAS SECURITIES LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Case Number
HCA9/2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Master's Decision (rehearing) / Decision on Strike Out Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; offending part of paragraph 10 struck out; order below set aside; Respondents' Notice to cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Misrepresentation/deceit, Costs, Procedural Appeal
Source Language
EN
Securities and Futures Employment Civil Procedure Strike Out Misrepresentation/deceit Costs Procedural Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN SHING CHOI

1st Plaintiff

CHAN FUN CHU

2nd Plaintiff

KOO MOO YU

1st Defendant

KOO MOO YU formerly trading as LAERTES SECURITIES COMPANY

2nd Defendant

AEVITAS SECURITIES LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Master's Decision (rehearing) / Decision on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 10 (excluding first sentence) of the Reply is irrelevant, scandalous and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs' Respondents' Notice to cross-appeal is competent
  3. 3 Who should bear costs of the summons and appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned portion of paragraph 10 (excluding the first sentence) is irrelevant to the pleaded issues, constitutes scandalous wide-ranging allegations lacking particulars, and would prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial; it must be struck out. The Plaintiffs' Respondents' Notice to cross-appeal was dismissed because there was no appealable order and the appeal is by way of rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; offending part of paragraph 10 struck out; order below set aside; Respondents' Notice to cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents' Notice to cross-appeal dismissed
  • Offending part of paragraph 10 (all except the first sentence) struck out