Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out (order 18 r.19)

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2017

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI899/2016

Summary judgment was properly refused because the defendants raised genuine and serious factual disputes that require a trial; however, the striking out of the claim for failure to file an amended statement of claim was set aside and the plaintiff given leave to continue, the proceedings were transferred to the District Court under s.43(1) Cap 336, and the 2nd defendant was substituted with the correct corporate entity; the plaintiff's appeal against refusal of summary judgment failed.
19 Jul 2013

張榮城，又名胡容對屯門仁愛眼科中心醫院及另一人

Citation

張榮城，又名胡容對屯門仁愛眼科中心醫院及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI48/2011

Even if all pleaded facts are accepted, the claimant failed to plead the essential elements of medical negligence (no adequate particulars of breach of duty or how defendants departed from the applicable standard) and the expert reports fail to meet the required standards (Bolam and Practice Direction/Orders), after multiple opportunities to remedy; therefore the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck out and dismissed.
22 Apr 2009

RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2060/2008

The originating summonses were an abuse of process and disclosed no reasonable cause of action in light of prior judicial review proceedings; Order 18 rule 19 is a constitutionally acceptable strike out/remedy mechanism; costs follow the event and Mr Ma is personally liable; a Restrictive Proceedings Order under Practice Direction 11.3 is justified against Ma Pui Tung and the Association with the designated judge requiring leave before commencing further proceedings.
5 Aug 2008

ADVANCED MP TECHNOLOGY HK LTD v. SU YAN WEN LISA

Citation

ADVANCED MP TECHNOLOGY HK LTD v. SU YAN WEN LISA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1252/2007

Pleadings as filed were vague and disclosed no reasonable cause of action; however voluntary particulars revealed tortious conduct (data copying/deletion and solicitation) taking the claims outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal. Leave to strike out was granted conditional on the plaintiff amending pleadings to disclose a reasonable cause of action within 14 days, failing which the actions would be dismissed with costs to the defendants.
2 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN HUNG

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN HUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ645/2004

The defence and counterclaim were struck out because the Defendant failed to plead facts establishing the asserted implied term or any contractual basis to refuse completion; delay in development did not excuse completion where the Agreement provided the vendor's rights; accordingly the Defence had no reasonable prospect and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for damages to be assessed.
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

HCMP844/2007

The petitions against four dormant "shelf" companies (HCMP Nos. 846, 848, 849, 851 of 2007) were struck out because the pleaded misconduct did not, in substance or reality, amount to conduct of the affairs of those subject companies; by contrast, petitions against certain property-holding companies, Sparkling Wine, Step Further and Insomnia Singapore were not plain and obvious failures because sufficient interdependence or asserted impacts on those companies' affairs were pleaded. Leave to amend was granted for the petitions not struck out and the petition HCMP 1208/2007 and HCA 2712/2006 wer…
15 Aug 2002

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD.

Citation

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1970/2002

The Statement of Claim is struck out as an abuse of process/res judicata because the allegations of secret trading and misappropriation arise from the same accounts and subject matter as the earlier litigation and could and should have been raised then; no special circumstances exist to excuse the failure to raise them; plaintiff's summary judgment/ admissions argument fails as correspondence was without prejudice and not an admission.
31 Dec 1991

CHUN LEE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. AOKI CORPORATION

Citation

CHUN LEE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. AOKI CORPORATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/1991

Summary judgment for HK$620,000 was set aside because the claim rested on a certificate that was only a qualified admission and its conclusive effect depended on disputed contractual terms (the existence and content of any implied term for interim payments/retentions); because those contractual issues were genuinely arguable, Order 14 summary judgment was inappropriate. The refusal to grant late leave to amend was tied to the flawed basis for the original Order 14 decision and the court allowed the re-amendment appeal.
28 Feb 1985

LO KA CHUN v. LO TO AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO KA CHUN v. LO TO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2015/1980

Leave to amend and to serve the proposed new Statement of Claim was refused and both applications dismissed because the proposed pleading introduced a series of unparticularised and embarrassing allegations (notably of intent, fraud and undue influence), some raised extraordinarily late and without adequate explanation, some made in bad faith or demonstrated to be untenable; the plaintiff had had prior opportunities and the court must prevent abuse of process and ensure necessary particularisation under the rules.