13 Dec 2018
Because the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and in light of appellate authority permitting active case management, the court exercised its power to dismiss the leave application for want of prosecution.
24 Mar 2016
The Court dismissed the defendant's summons for leave to include additional grounds because none of the proposed grounds had a reasonable prospect of success or other reason in the interests of justice to be heard; the s31 limitation point is fact-sensitive and not suitable for striking out at this stage; the amended pleadings were sufficiently particularised on causation and loss for present purposes.
19 Aug 2008
Plaintiff's affirmation was inadmissible for failing to identify the maker and source of the drawings and to provide necessary grounds for belief under O.41 r.5(2); that omission was too grave to be cured under O.41 r.4, so there was no admissible proof of copyright and the interlocutory injunction could not be granted; alternatively, on merits the balance did not favour injunction given defendant's evidence of independent earlier production; plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable and amounted to an improper interlocutory ambush, justifying striking out the injunction application and ordering d…
18 Apr 2008
The summons to intervene was dismissed because the interveners failed to demonstrate the requisite direct legal or pecuniary interest under either limb of Order 15 r.6(2)(b); the dispute is an internal shareholder management dispute about authority to pursue a derivative counterclaim by MHX and the interveners' interest is indirect; they can contest any MHX counterclaim on its merits in arbitration and are not necessary parties to the present action.
3 Sept 2003
The court held that to sustain a petition under s.168A the complained conduct must plainly be conduct in the affairs of the specific subject company; allegations solely concerning other companies that do not interact with or affect the subject company's affairs must be struck out as irrelevant and abusive. Consequently substantial identical material in the nine petitions that related only to other companies was struck out and the petitioner was ordered to file amended petitions limited to matters relevant to each subject company.
22 Apr 2002
The claim was a liquidated, undisputed debt and, by virtue of s.103 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, the debtor's death did not terminate the proceedings; therefore the petition was properly restored and a bankruptcy order was made against the deceased debtor.
18 Jun 1998
The correct construction of s.2(1) and Schedule 1 Part 2 is that a person who makes a loan to a company secured by a registrable mortgage is excluded from the definition of "money lender" as respects that loan; therefore the Loan Agreement was not rendered illegal by the Money Lenders Ordinance and the mortgage was enforceable, so the appeal was dismissed and judgment entered for the plaintiffs in MP4001.
17 Dec 1996
The petition was not plain and obvious to fail: the pleaded facts, assumed true for strike-out purposes, sufficiently alleged exclusion from management, diversion of revenue to related businesses and use of third party entities to operate the business so as to found arguable unfairly prejudicial conduct under s.168A. Consequently the strike-out application failed. The court had jurisdiction to grant interim preservation orders, to compel signature of accounts where necessary to meet statutory filing obligations, and to appoint a court expert valuer with costs ordered in the cause and initiall…
17 Nov 1992
The Court allowed the appeal in part: it set aside the judge's orders allowing substitution of the plaintiff's expert and allowing amendment to the plaintiff's answer to the defendants' request for particulars because those orders were improperly granted without adequate evidential foundation or were unduly prejudicial when made late; it declined to disturb the judge's decision to award costs on a common fund basis but removed the requirement that costs be taxed and paid before the action could be relisted, permitting relisting while preserving liberty to apply.
16 Oct 1985
The Court of Appeal held that a strike out or dismissal is appropriate only where it is clear no cause of action is disclosed; on that test the 9th version of the Statement of Claim did disclose triable issues as to trust (express, implied/resulting and arising from contractual consideration) and oral promise based on the undertaking and 1974 letter, but the allegation of undue influence was properly struck out for lack of good cause for late pleading; accordingly leave to serve the 9th version was granted except for paragraph 36 (undue influence) and associated prayer.