Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars

Legal area

Court

12 Jan 2026

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. NEW EDEX CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT26/2024

The contested strike‑out applications were dismissed because the matters complained of were fact‑sensitive and arguable on the pleaded case, limitation and abuse‑of‑process arguments depended on the construction and effect of alleged agreements, deficiencies of particulars should be remedied by requests rather than strike‑out, and the proposed amendments rendered strike‑out inappropriate; consequently the amendment was granted with directions and only one part of the strike‑out application was adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.
14 Nov 2025

LAI CHEE YING v. TA KUNG PAO (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1949
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ674/2025

The proposed amendments failed to provide the requisite particularity for allegations of corporate malice: identifying 101 articles without specifying the impugned content or the facts from which malice is to be inferred is confusing and prejudicial; pleadings must state specific facts/persons for malice; allowing vague amendments would impede just resolution; therefore leave to amend was refused and the summons dismissed.
15 Aug 2025

OOO SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD) v. BANK OF QINGDAO CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1141/2022

The judge found no real prospect of success on any pleaded ground of appeal: the Unless Order was correctly construed in context; relief against sanction was contingent on Ground 1 and therefore not sustainable; the Everglory Amendments are sufficiently clear in context and raise triable issues; the Clause 3.2 Amendments are permissible notwithstanding likely nominal damages; and the summons was dismissed with costs assessed at HK$380,000 but not on an indemnity basis.
4 Nov 2024

WESOFT NATIONMARK LTD v. NATIONMARK (H.K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA724/2019

The court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to pay one third of the 1st to 3rd defendants' costs of opposing the plaintiff's Request for Further and Better Particulars and to pay the costs of the appeal to the 1st to 3rd defendants, directed summary assessment on paper with specified lodgement deadlines, and summarily assessed the relevant sums at HK$25,000 and HK$34,000 respectively.
10 Oct 2024

LAU KWOK HUNG (AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAU WO alias LAU YICK WO, THE DECEASED) v. WH AH JEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2733
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1071/2022

The court held the theft averment in paragraph 24 was not plainly irrelevant or bound to fail because damages for trespass can encompass trespass to goods and conversion; particulars could be provided (police report exists) and evidential criticisms did not justify striking out at interlocutory stage. Consequently the Master’s orders striking out the theft allegation and refusing leave to include the police‑report allegation were set aside and leave to amend was granted to include the Proposed Amended Defence and Counterclaim in full, with directions for a draft order and costs assessment.
29 Aug 2023

CHEUNG MOON HOI AND ANOTHER v. HO CHI KUEN CHARLES

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1194
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1324/2021

The appeal is allowed because the Consolidated Defence contained substantive new facts not previously pleaded or particularised in the separate defences or affidavits; those parts are impermissible amendments under principles governing consolidation and must be struck out; the Master’s order dismissing the striking out application is set aside and the identified paragraphs are struck out with directions for replacement and limited costs to the successful appellant.
31 Mar 2023

KEIRON PETER ARCH ROCHESTER v. GLORY SKY PRECIOUS METALS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 905
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA395/2019

The appeal was dismissed because the Notice of Appeal was served late without any application for extension of time or explanation from the defendant; alternatively, on the merits the striking out applications were dismissed because the plaintiff used media publications only to prove their existence and effect (not their truth) and the particulars given were not so excessive or prejudicial as to justify striking out.
3 Jun 2020

KOO MING KOWN v. REV. MR. MOK KONG TING (PRESIDENT OF THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1040
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2016

The appeal was allowed and the Master\'s strike out order set aside because (1) the interlocutory 2018 decision did not bind D3 who was not represented at the hearing and (2) there were material changes and new evidence (D3 ceased to be supervisor and a public announcement was made) justifying reconsideration; further, the claim for a declaration that D3 was not a fit and proper person was justiciable under the Education Ordinance and it was not a plain and obvious case warranting strike out under O 18 r 19.
7 Jan 2020

TSANG SHU WO AND ANOTHER v. Person unknown in occupation of Lot No. 2643RP in D.D.120, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 121
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3279/2013

Leave to file and serve the proposed Rejoinder was refused because the application was unreasonably late, the equitable irrevocable licence should have been pleaded in the Defence under O.18 r.8(2), the proposed pleading lacked necessary particulars, allowing it would prejudice the Plaintiffs by necessitating investigation and likely adjournment after six years to trial, and costs would not be an adequate remedy given the 2nd Defendant is legally aided.
22 Nov 2019

KU MING FONG KATHERINE AND OTHERS v. CHU CHIA CHIN CHARLES

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2849
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1757/2018

The Judge allowed most of the Master's ordered particulars as they were relevant and necessary to limit the generality of the Defence and to enable preparation and discovery; however particulars that effectively sought specific discovery or matters irrelevant to pleaded issues were disallowed (notably requests seeking employment terms not pleaded, specific sale documentation and enquiries beyond whether the 4th Plaintiff was informed). The court required deletion of open-ended phrases ('including but not limited to') and confined particulars to matters necessary for fair disposal.