盧順寧 對 黃發安及另一人

盧順寧 對 黃發安及另一人

The court struck out the plaintiff's claims in all three consolidated actions because the pleaded claims lacked any medical basis to connect the alleged neighbour noise to the claimed hearing and psychiatric injuries; given the undisputed expert medical reports showing no causal link and only mild, non‑disabling hearing loss, the claims were plain and obvious, frivolous and/or vexatious and constituted an abuse of process, warranting strike‑out under Order 18 r19 and the court's inherent jurisdiction; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs including counsel fees.

Citation
盧順寧 對 黃發安及另一人
Parties
Plaintiff (consolidated): 盧順寧; First Defendant (dcpi 1363/2014): 黃發安; Second Defendant (dcpi 1363/2014): 宋玉玲; First Defendant (dcpi 811/2013): 林坤華; Second Defendant (dcpi 811/2013): 劉秀蓮; First Defendant (dcpi 624/2013): 江少儀; Second Defendant (dcpi 624/2013): 陳力為
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 2017
Case Number
DCPI1363/2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (noise Nuisance) Consolidated Cases / Interlocutory — Strike‑out Application (pre‑trial)
Outcome
Plaintiff's statements of claim and amended damages particulars in all three consolidated cases struck out as frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process; strike‑out granted under Order 18 r19 and/or inherent jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Frivolous and Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Causation, Expert Medical Evidence, Inherent Jurisdiction, Preliminary Issues (order 33)
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Tort Personal Injury Evidence Strike Out Frivolous and Vexatious Abuse of Process Causation +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

盧順寧

Plaintiff (consolidated)

黃發安

First Defendant (dcpi 1363/2014)

宋玉玲

Second Defendant (dcpi 1363/2014)

林坤華

First Defendant (dcpi 811/2013)

劉秀蓮

Second Defendant (dcpi 811/2013)

江少儀

First Defendant (dcpi 624/2013)

陳力為

Second Defendant (dcpi 624/2013)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (noise Nuisance) Consolidated Cases / Interlocutory — Strike‑out Application (pre‑trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action or are plain and obvious no‑hope claims
  2. 2 Whether the claims are frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process warranting strike‑out under Order 18 r19 or the court's inherent jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has adduced medical/expert evidence to establish causation between alleged noise and claimed auditory/psychiatric injury

Ratio Decidendi

The court struck out the plaintiff's claims in all three consolidated actions because the pleaded claims lacked any medical basis to connect the alleged neighbour noise to the claimed hearing and psychiatric injuries; given the undisputed expert medical reports showing no causal link and only mild, non‑disabling hearing loss, the claims were plain and obvious, frivolous and/or vexatious and constituted an abuse of process, warranting strike‑out under Order 18 r19 and the court's inherent jurisdiction; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs including counsel fees.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's statements of claim and amended damages particulars in all three consolidated cases struck out as frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process; strike‑out granted under Order 18 r19 and/or inherent jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Strike out the claim and amended damages particulars in DCPI 1363/2014, DCPI 811/2013 and DCPI 624/2013
  • Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs for all three actions, including costs of the strike‑out applications and counsel's fees where incurred