Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 18 rule 19

Legal area

Court

15 Jun 2023

GOLDEN LEAP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HARAPLAZA CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT63/2022

Leave to issue or serve the third party notice was refused because the defendant failed to comply with the mandatory affidavit and particularity requirements of Order 16 rule 2(2) and the Notice lacked necessary particulars so no prima facie case was shown; paragraphs 25–39, the word 'Counterclaim' and the prayer for relief in the Defence and Counterclaim were struck out because they were irrelevant to the plaintiff's claims, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous or vexatious; costs were ordered to the plaintiff.
10 Jun 2021

TANG SUM MOON AND ANOTHER v. FUNG CHUI LIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA32/2020

The indorsement failed to comply with Order 6 r 2 and was issued to stop the limitation period, amounting to an abuse of process; the court has power under Order 18 r 19 to strike out pleadings on its own motion; the statement of claim exceeded the writ contrary to Order 18 r 15(2); plaintiffs conceded a reasonably arguable limitation defence, therefore the indorsement and statement of claim as against the 3rd and 4th defendants are struck out and the action dismissed against them with costs assessed.
3 Dec 2018

A v. 林守光

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1552
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2018

The counterclaim was struck out because there was no procedural convenience in trying the defamation counterclaim with the sexual harassment claim given distinct causes of action and different legal elements; the defamation pleading lacked material particulars as to words, meaning and publications and therefore risked prejudice, embarrassment and delay to the fair trial of the claimant's ready-to-trial harassment claim; respondent may commence a fresh action if so advised.
12 Dec 2016

YIFUNG PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. MANCHESTER SECURITIES CORP AND OTHERS

Citation

YIFUNG PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. MANCHESTER SECURITIES CORP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV258/2015

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the questions raised were new to the appeal, not argued below and not reasonably arguable: Article 35 does not preclude striking out abusive or groundless proceedings, the Goldsmith passage was distinguishable and inapplicable to the contemporaneous-document evidence relied upon, and the judge did not unlawfully disapply Order 18 r 19. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the leave applications and ordered costs.
8 Jan 2016

CHENG HUNG KIT v. JIM YIU MING

Citation

CHENG HUNG KIT v. JIM YIU MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2037/2011

The defendant's strike out application was dismissed because, on the pleadings alone and without evidence, the alleged deficiencies (lack of particulars and absence of a specific damages prayer) were remediable by amendment or by pursuing particulars under Order 18 rule 12; therefore the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action and should not be struck out under O.18 r.19(1)(a).
18 Nov 2015

ETC FINANCE LTD v. WEALTH PARAMOUNT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ETC FINANCE LTD v. WEALTH PARAMOUNT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2027/2014

The defence disclosed no reasonable defence and was strike‑outable under Order 18 r 19; because the plaintiff sought judgment the court required an affirmation under Order 88 r 5 to protect the mortgagor; the master's order was set aside and orders were made striking out the defence, permitting judgment to be entered in terms of the master's order and awarding costs to the plaintiff.
28 Apr 2014

GURDAS S CHOITHRAMANI v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

GURDAS S CHOITHRAMANI v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2073/2011

The Statement of Claim is struck out because the causes of action accrued before or upon the plaintiff's bankruptcy and therefore the plaintiff has no locus standi to pursue them; consequently the court has no jurisdiction to allow the claim to proceed and will not decide ancillary issues at this stage; strike out ordered under Order 18 r 19.
29 Aug 2013

LEE MEI CHUN v. REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE MEI CHUN v. REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI723/2013

The court held that the doctrine of absolute state immunity, as applicable in Hong Kong under PRC law since 1997, deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear claims against the Republic of the Philippines; accordingly the claims against the Republic were struck out under Order 18 rule 19 and the court's inherent jurisdiction, with directions given for the further conduct of proceedings against non‑state defendants.
2 Feb 2012

AU WO CHEUNG v. AU AH

Citation

AU WO CHEUNG v. AU AH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ249/2011

The defence, although legally deficient in particulars, cannot be struck out summarily under Order 18 r19(1)(a) because factual evidence is required to determine whether a promise existed and whether the defendant has a right to remain; accordingly the court refused to exercise the summary power and granted leave to amend the defence and to later amend the plaintiff's reply.
11 Jul 2011

EDWARD YEUNG CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT (YEUNG EDWARD) v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS / THE PRACTICE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Citation

EDWARD YEUNG CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT (YEUNG EDWARD) v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS / THE PRACTICE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA948/2011

Because the indorsement of writ was incomprehensible and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the plaintiff failed to attend to show cause, the court validly exercised its powers under Order 1B and Order 18 rule 19 to strike out the indorsement, dismiss the action and award costs to the defendant.