Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out/summary dismissal

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2025

（陳海瀅）陳鈺蘭（以及家庭嬰孩兒其本人）對九龍城裁判法院少年法庭案件編號（家庭嬰孩兒）（KCJP29/2018） KCJP122/2018 （及KCJP49/2016）於2018年10月26日惡意行事、惡意審判的裁判官黃國輝

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1041
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7586/2024

The court struck out the plaintiff's s125 claim because it failed to plead or provide cogent evidence that the judge acted maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause; the allegations were serious, unsupported, and amounted to an abuse of process so that strike-out under Order 18 r19 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was warranted; leave to amend would be futile.
26 Mar 2018

黃碩雄對范荏愷

Citation

[2018] HKCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV130/2017

The appeals were dismissed because the pleaded causes of action lacked legal foundation and were either not recognized (age discrimination), legally inapplicable (incitement absent procuring a breach with loss), factually insufficient to establish harassment (absence of requisite course of conduct causing distress), or legally barred (statements in litigation protected by absolute/qualified privilege); privacy claims under the PDPO were improperly brought in the High Court and personal data used in litigation are exempt under s60B PDPO; new allegations raised on appeal could not be considered…
26 Mar 2018

黃碩雄對范荏愷

Citation

[2018] HKCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/2017

The appeals were dismissed because the pleaded causes of action lacked legal foundation or necessary elements: no statutory basis for age discrimination; procuring breach/economic tort not established (no termination by management and no loss shown); alleged harassment did not meet required repetitive and distress-causing elements; statements and evidence used in court proceedings are protected by privilege; privacy claims under the PDPO are procedurally and substantively inappropriate for the High Court and much of the material was exempt under s60B — therefore the strike-out orders below we…
3 Mar 2017

黄英儿訴陈良芸

Citation

黄英儿訴陈良芸
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3093/2015

The statement of claim failed to plead facts establishing plaintiff's ownership or exclusive possession of the ashes or that the defendant had sole possession or authority to relocate them; plaintiff also omitted the deceased's son (the husband) as a necessary defendant and did not address regulatory or columbarium constraints. On that basis the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the registrar's strike-out was correctly affirmed; costs follow the unsuccessful appellant.
30 Sept 2016

LEUNG WAI MING, the Administrator of the Estate of TSANG KAM OI, deceased v. MASSMUTUAL ASIA LTD

Citation

LEUNG WAI MING, the Administrator of the Estate of TSANG KAM OI, deceased v. MASSMUTUAL ASIA LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3172/2014

The strike-out application was dismissed because the defendant failed to show the claim was plainly unsustainable: there is an arguable case that the change of ownership may have been void for lack of insurable interest, which would mean the original policy continued and the alleged surrender by the purported owner may not have validly terminated the insured's rights; factual and legal issues are not suitable for summary disposal.
28 Jan 2016

CHU KWOK KEE KOOKIE v. MING CHOR PAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHU KWOK KEE KOOKIE v. MING CHOR PAO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP704/2015

The 2nd Defendant's summary application to dismiss/strike out was dismissed because the central issue of the donor's mental capacity at execution of the EPA is hotly contested and requires a full trial with medical evidence; the plaintiff's application to withdraw was refused in favour of adjourning the present action sine die with liberty to restore pending determination of the defendant's appeal (CACV 162/2015) to avoid prejudice and duplicity of proceedings; costs ordered accordingly.

Hong Kong Case Law

（陳海瀅） 陳鈺蘭（以及家庭嬰孩兒其本人） 對 九龍城裁判法院少年法庭案件編號（家庭嬰孩兒）（KCJP29/2018） KCJP122/2018 （及KCJP49/2016）於2018年10月26日惡意行事、惡意審判的裁判官黃國輝

黃碩雄 對 范荏愷

黃碩雄 對 范荏愷

黄英儿 訴 陈良芸

LEUNG WAI MING, the Administrator of the Estate of TSANG KAM OI, deceased v. MASSMUTUAL ASIA LTD

CHU KWOK KEE KOOKIE v. MING CHOR PAO AND ANOTHER

（陳海瀅）陳鈺蘭（以及家庭嬰孩兒其本人）對九龍城裁判法院少年法庭案件編號（家庭嬰孩兒）（KCJP29/2018） KCJP122/2018 （及KCJP49/2016）於2018年10月26日惡意行事、惡意審判的裁判官黃國輝

黃碩雄對范荏愷

黃碩雄對范荏愷

黄英儿訴陈良芸