Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particularity of pleadings

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2026

ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. JAMES WARDELL, also known as JIM WARDELL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2074
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1650/2021

Retrospective leave was granted because the Statement of Claim disclosed arguable causes of action against the IRs as receivers and as CLB directors, the alleged inconsistencies with PRC proceedings could properly be run as alternative cases and did not amount to an abuse of process on the facts, the pleadings were sufficiently particularised to pass the arguability threshold, and the delay did not cause substantive prejudice warranting denial of leave; the Allbright Proceedings Claim was dismissed.
31 Dec 2019

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3136
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3040/2015

The proposed amendments pleading the Chern Debt amount to a new claim within section 35 of the Limitation Ordinance; Delco has a reasonably arguable limitation defence which would be defeated if the amendment were allowed; the Chern Debt claim does not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the previously pleaded Fang Debt and HKM Debt and therefore Order 20 rule 5 does not save the amendment; accordingly the opposed amendments relating to the Chern Debt are disallowed while unopposed amendments are allowed.
21 Feb 2019

VIGERS HONG KONG LTD (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) v. MICHAEL ANDREW BARCLAY BINNEY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA744/2013

Allow the defendants to amend their Defence to plead industry/trade practice (trade practice) as to the Transfers, VH Payments and VAP Payments because the pleaded particulars (disposal of non‑profitable/non‑core assets and centralisation/reduction of costs) are sufficiently particularized and relevant to core issues; refuse to permit any pleading that purports to plead a binding 'custom' because the particulars lack the notoriety, certainty and universality required of a trade custom and are embarrassing; refuse leave for paragraph 42(3A) and its particulars because they are immaterial to th…
30 May 2018

LAI SUK YI v. HAU TSO HEE alias HAU CHO HEE STANLEY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA215/2014

The Court held that the Statement of Claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action in adverse possession because it lacked adequate particularity as to the precise area and boundaries, did not plead facts establishing factual possession or the requisite animus possidendi, and that documents and modification permits indicated occupation by permission rather than adverse possession; accordingly late amendments were refused as futile and none of the witness statements were allowed to stand as evidence-in-chief where credibility was in issue.
23 Jan 2018

HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. KOO SIU YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA494/2015

Application for leave to appeal was dismissed because Ground 1 had no reasonable prospect of success as the relation-back principle did not apply and the claims were prima facie time-barred; s.35(3) does not create an independent barrier to joinder outside the relation-back context; Ground 2 failed to show that the pleadings were inadequately particularised and the pleaded facts were sufficient to support an alternative case of piercing the corporate veil or alter ego.
13 Apr 2017

LAW KWONG CHUEN AND OTHERS v. BILLION FOOD SERVICE LTD t/a CANNES CUISINE

Citation

LAW KWONG CHUEN AND OTHERS v. BILLION FOOD SERVICE LTD t/a CANNES CUISINE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5665/2016

Default judgment was refused because the statement of claim failed to identify with sufficient precision the exact location of the Western Wall and failed to plead that the plaintiffs had ownership or exclusive possession of the exterior part, defects fatal to a claim for trespass on the pleaded case.
1 Jun 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 statement of claim was struck out because on its face it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of confidence: the confidential information was pleaded in vague, open‑ended and non‑specific terms; there was no sufficiently pleaded unauthorised use or disclosure of particular confidential information; the pleading contained many irrelevant allegations of duty of care and unpleaded losses; and no amendment or further particulars were proffered to cure these fundamental defects.
30 Apr 2015

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

Citation

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

District Court
Case number

DCPI227/2013

The proposed re-amendments were entirely dependent on a plea to lift the corporate veil which lacked required particulars and evidential foundation; mere shareholding, directorship or employment did not establish the plaintiff used Ka Wan as an alter ego or façade for unlawful conduct and there was no demonstrated nexus between any alleged crimes and intentional use of the corporate vehicle; therefore the amendments had no real prospects of success and must be refused, so the appeal was allowed and the master's order set aside.
17 Oct 2008

HELM HONG KONG LTD v. MARK OLIVER VON TORKLUS

Citation

HELM HONG KONG LTD v. MARK OLIVER VON TORKLUS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2327/2006

The appeal was allowed and specific discovery ordered: because the amended statement of claim sufficiently particularised the alleged frauds and there was an admitted transaction (RMB1.1m) placing the defendant's records at issue, the defendant's bank accounts from 2000 to date were relevant and in his power; the application was not a fishing expedition and disclosure should be subject to protective measures (inspection by solicitors, agreed redactions, confidentiality), with liberty to apply if disputes arise.
1 Jun 2007

SUBRA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. MATHIAS KURT VON BESCHERER AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUBRA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. MATHIAS KURT VON BESCHERER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3201/2003

The court allowed the re-amendments because they were clarificatory rather than introducing new causes of action, the 1st defendant had been informed of the ambit of the allegations (including by correspondence), the pleaded particulars were the best available prior to discovery, and refusal would unjustly restrict the plaintiffs’ claim; accordingly the master’s refusal was set aside and leave granted.