Y 對 B及另五人

Y 對 B及另五人

The court struck out and dismissed both claims because the claimant failed to plead which provisions/scope of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance applied and did not plead material facts to show the conduct occurred within an actionable statutory scope; objectively the pleaded material did not disclose sexual conduct or targeting such that a reasonable person would anticipate the claimant would be offended, and parts of the pleadings were scandalous or vexatious; the defects were incurable so strike‑out and dismissal were appropriate, with costs to respondents.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 1175
Parties
Applicant: Y; Respondent: A; Respondent: B; Respondent: C; Respondent: D; Respondent: E; Respondent: F; Respondent: G
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2024
Case Number
DCEO2/2024
Procedural Posture
Equality Opportunity Litigation Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance / Interlocutory Strike‑out Application Under Regional Court Rules Order 18 Rule 19
Outcome
Claims struck out and proceedings dismissed in DCEO 1/2024 and DCEO 2/2024
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment Definition, Strike‑out of Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Costs
Source Language
CH
Sex Discrimination Civil Procedure Equality Law Sexual Harassment Definition Strike‑out of Pleadings Abuse of Process Costs

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y

Applicant

A

Respondent

B

Respondent

C

Respondent

D

Respondent

E

Respondent

F

Respondent

G

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equality Opportunity Litigation Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance / Interlocutory Strike‑out Application Under Regional Court Rules Order 18 Rule 19

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the alleged conduct falls within the statutory scopes where sexual harassment is actionable
  3. 3 Whether the claims are frivolous, vexatious, scandalous or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The court struck out and dismissed both claims because the claimant failed to plead which provisions/scope of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance applied and did not plead material facts to show the conduct occurred within an actionable statutory scope; objectively the pleaded material did not disclose sexual conduct or targeting such that a reasonable person would anticipate the claimant would be offended, and parts of the pleadings were scandalous or vexatious; the defects were incurable so strike‑out and dismissal were appropriate, with costs to respondents.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out and proceedings dismissed in DCEO 1/2024 and DCEO 2/2024

Orders

  • The claim forms and statements of case in DCEO 1/2024 and DCEO 2/2024 are struck out and the proceedings are dismissed.
  • Provisional costs order: applicant Y to pay respondents' costs in DCEO 1/2024 in the sum of HK$156,208.