Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike‑out procedure

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2017

Relevant employees whose shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited held by ZHANG CAIKUI on trust (Please refer to Schedule 1 attached to the Writ of Summons for names of the relevant employees) AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

Relevant employees whose shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited held by ZHANG CAIKUI on trust (Please refer to Schedule 1 attached to the Writ of Summons for names of the relevant employees) AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1661/2014

The court directed that the strike-out summons be set down for argument (estimated half day) and that the validity of SH's retainer, and K&L Gates' standing to challenge it, be decided at that interlocutory hearing rather than by an extensive multi-day trial; accordingly the claims of the 1,072 plaintiffs represented by SH were stayed pending the outcome, no further evidence may be filed without leave, and costs of the June 30 hearing were ordered in the cause.
29 Mar 2017

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1574/2016

The court found the original summary assessment excessive, disallowed recovery for an additional fee earner beyond limited supervision, allowed the fees of the assisting solicitor within the reduced sum, and exercised its discretion to reduce the assessed costs from $500,000 to $300,800 and to award costs of the variation application to the Zhangs.
17 Oct 2012

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1466/2012

The court held that a defendant may apply to strike out a patent infringement claim but the strike‑out application must succeed only in plain and obvious cases; here it was not plain and obvious that the patent was invalid on the material before the court (factual and technical disputes, possible confidentiality of disclosures and need for expert evidence), therefore the 1st defendant's strike‑out application was dismissed and the matter must proceed to trial.
2 Aug 2012

LEAD TRADERS LTD v. LUCKY LAND ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEAD TRADERS LTD v. LUCKY LAND ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV217/2011

The Notice's definition of 'unit' is determined by registered instruments allocating undivided shares; physical alteration or compliance with DMC/Occupation Permit/Buildings Ordinance is irrelevant to that statutory definition, and subdivisions registered before 1 April 2010 must be recognised; therefore Units A and B, each recorded as 8.33%, are separate units and the lowered 80% threshold is inapplicable, requiring dismissal of the compulsory sale application.
11 Mar 2008

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1738/2006

The court held the plaintiff's claims against Hillhead and Ernst & Young are claims for reflective loss which should be struck out because the underlying companies (HEL and HICL) have viable causes of action and there is insufficient evidence that the Giles exception (that the companies were disabled from suing) applies; accordingly the claims against the trustee and the firm fail and are dismissed.
26 Oct 2007

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Citation

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP845/2007

The petitions relating to dormant shelf companies were struck out because, on the pleaded facts, it was plain and obvious they contained no complaint that could properly be characterised as conduct in the affairs of those dormant companies; by contrast petitions concerning property‑holding companies, the IP holding company (Sparkling Wine), Step Further and Insomnia Singapore were not struck out because the pleaded financial interdependence, operational links and plausible effects on listing, banking facilities, audits, staff and business opportunities meant it was not plain and obvious they…
7 Feb 2006

ANTHONY WEE SOON KIM v. UBS AG HONG KONG BRANCH

Citation

ANTHONY WEE SOON KIM v. UBS AG HONG KONG BRANCH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2005/2004

The court held that the Hong Kong action was an abuse of process and barred by res judicata: the debit of US$4,185,000 and the safe custody charges had been litigated or could and should have been litigated in Singapore (extended and narrow res judicata respectively), the safe custody claims were also time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance, and the bank was contractually entitled to set off and transfer funds; accordingly the Statement of Claim was struck out.
7 Sept 2004

WONG TAI WAI DAVID v. THE HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

WONG TAI WAI DAVID v. THE HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV19/2003

The Court allowed the appeal in CACV 247/2003 because, for the limited purpose of a strike‑out application, the statement of claim must be read assuming the pleaded facts true and, on that basis, the allegations disclosed arguable causes of action in harassment, intentional/reckless infliction of emotional distress, negligence and human rights infringement; the judge below erred in striking out on the 'no reasonable cause of action' basis without addressing these arguable causes and the respondent did not lodge a respondent's notice to uphold alternative grounds.