MA WAI WAH AND ANOTHER v. SUEK CHAI KIT CHRISTOPHER AND OTHERS

MA WAI WAH AND ANOTHER v. SUEK CHAI KIT CHRISTOPHER AND OTHERS

The judge found the plaintiffs' claims, while overlapping and possibly in need of amendment, were not so inherently incredible or doomed to fail that they could be struck out at this stage; disputed facts must be taken for the plaintiffs and striking out is only appropriate where success is impossible, therefore the defendants' strike out application was dismissed.

Citation
MA WAI WAH AND ANOTHER v. SUEK CHAI KIT CHRISTOPHER AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: MA WAI WAH; 2nd Plaintiff: ALL JOLLY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 1st Defendant: SUEK CHAI KIT CHRISTOPHER; 2nd Defendant: BETTERWAY LTD; 3rd Defendant: 3rd Defendant (name not specified in judgment)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 November 2012
Case Number
HCA508/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil High Court Action / Interlocutory Striking Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Defendants' application to strike out Amended Statement of Claim and Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Rescission, Specific Performance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Financial Assistance, Costs Orders, Unless Order
Source Language
EN
Company Law Contract Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Shareholder Disputes Striking Out Rescission Specific Performance +5 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA WAI WAH

1st Plaintiff

ALL JOLLY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

SUEK CHAI KIT CHRISTOPHER

1st Defendant

BETTERWAY LTD

2nd Defendant

3rd Defendant (name not specified in judgment)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil High Court Action / Interlocutory Striking Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19 (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Statement of Claim is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process warranting strike out under Order 18 r 19
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded claims are multiplicious, inconsistent or duplicative causing prejudice and embarrassment
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded facts are inherently unbelievable so that the claim is impossible to succeed

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the plaintiffs' claims, while overlapping and possibly in need of amendment, were not so inherently incredible or doomed to fail that they could be struck out at this stage; disputed facts must be taken for the plaintiffs and striking out is only appropriate where success is impossible, therefore the defendants' strike out application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to strike out Amended Statement of Claim and Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' strike out application dismissed
  • Defendants to pay costs of the application and all reserved costs to the plaintiffs, to be taxed if not agreed (costs orders nisi)