WONG CHAU WAN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NOS 11-12 CANAL ROAD WEST, HONG KONG

WONG CHAU WAN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NOS 11-12 CANAL ROAD WEST, HONG KONG

The Insurance Defence as pleaded was struck out because the defendant's own evidence and prior conduct established Ka Wan, not the plaintiff personally, as the owner of the Extended Signboard, yet the pleading failed to join Ka Wan or plead particulars required to justify piercing the corporate veil; equitable estoppel argument was legally unsustainable on the pleaded facts, whereas set-off based on ownership could be arguable if plaintiff were owner; accordingly paragraphs 10(a)–(n) and 11(a) and the counterclaim as pleaded were unarguably bad and struck out, but leave to apply to amend was permitted within a specified period.

Citation
WONG CHAU WAN v. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NOS 11-12 CANAL ROAD WEST, HONG KONG
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 November 2014
Case Number
DCPI227/2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries (tort) / Striking Out Application Under RDC Order 18 R19 / Inherent Jurisdiction (interlocutory Decision)
Outcome
Struck out parts of defence and struck out counterclaim with conditional leave to apply to amend
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Estoppel, Set Off, Lifting/piercing Corporate Veil, Res Judicata/abuse of Process, Contributory Negligence, Statutory Building Controls, Owners Corporation Liability
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Tort (personal Injury) Company Law (lifting Corporate Veil) Property Law (building/advertisement Controls) Insurance Law Equity (estoppel) Strike Out Application Estoppel +6 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries (tort) / Striking Out Application Under RDC Order 18 R19 / Inherent Jurisdiction (interlocutory Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's 'Insurance Defence' is legally sustainable and relevant to the plaintiff's personal injury claim
  2. 2 Who legally owned the unauthorised extended advertisement signboard at material times
  3. 3 Whether an estoppel can bar the plaintiff's tort claim because of the alleged illegal signboard

Ratio Decidendi

The Insurance Defence as pleaded was struck out because the defendant's own evidence and prior conduct established Ka Wan, not the plaintiff personally, as the owner of the Extended Signboard, yet the pleading failed to join Ka Wan or plead particulars required to justify piercing the corporate veil; equitable estoppel argument was legally unsustainable on the pleaded facts, whereas set-off based on ownership could be arguable if plaintiff were owner; accordingly paragraphs 10(a)–(n) and 11(a) and the counterclaim as pleaded were unarguably bad and struck out, but leave to apply to amend was permitted within a specified period.

Court Disposition

Struck out parts of defence and struck out counterclaim with conditional leave to apply to amend

Orders

  • Paragraphs 10(a) to (n) and 11(a) of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim are struck out
  • The whole of the Amended Counterclaim is struck out