20 Mar 2025
The court struck out the originating process because the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, contained incurable defects, were frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process, lacked any evidential or causal basis for the asserted astronomical damages, and the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to file written submissions.
7 Jan 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the claims were objectively frivolous or vexatious and therefore a costs order against the claimant was justified under s73B(3)(a); there were no special circumstances to award indemnity costs, so costs were assessed on a party-and-party basis at HK$100,000 (DCEO 1/2024) and HK$110,000 (DCEO 2/2024).
23 Aug 2021
The statement of claim failed to plead the factual basis of the alleged trust/nominee relationship and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action; the claim was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process in light of prior final determinations on the same subject matter; accordingly the claim was struck out, the action dismissed and an RPO was properly granted as a proportionate means to prevent further abusive relitigation.
16 Apr 2020
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the plaintiffs offered no explanation for a five‑month delay, advanced no arguable grounds or evidence to show a reasonable prospect of success, had repeatedly and improperly served a non‑party in breach of court direction constituting abuse of process, and the originating summons had been dismissed rendering any appeal purposeless.
1 Apr 2016
The court held the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, amounted to frivolous and vexatious litigation and an abuse of process in light of prior proceedings; accordingly the strike out and dismissal order was upheld, defendants were not required to file defences and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal.
23 Jun 2003
The judge held that although the plaintiff's claims lacked merit and some conduct was dilatory and obstructive, they were not shown to be malicious or frivolous so s73B(3)(a) did not apply; special circumstances could justify costs for specific interlocutory matters (the reserved summons for discovery) but did not justify costs of the whole proceedings; accordingly the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' reserved costs of the summons for discovery, to be taxed if not agreed.