25 Jun 2024
The applicant's claims were frivolous, unrelated to the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and constituted an abuse of process; accordingly the exceptions in District Court Ordinance s73B(3) apply and the applicant must pay the first respondent's costs, including the barrister's certificate.
22 May 2023
The claims were struck out and actions dismissed: the Acting Registrar enjoyed absolute judicial immunity for acts performed in the course of judicial functions and the Statement of Claim against him disclosed no reasonable cause of action; alternatively both actions were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process because the pleaded facts could not establish misfeasance in public office or unlawful conduct by the clerks; costs awarded on an indemnity basis.
22 Mar 2021
The pleaded claims failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action: the discrimination claims lacked factual particularity and did not allege differential treatment on the basis of sex or disability; the pleaded injuries related to the child not the plaintiff and no legal basis for the parent to recover as a secondary victim was shown; pleadings were vague and included extraneous, unsubstantiated allegations amounting to abuse of process; accordingly the claims were struck out and proceedings dismissed with costs to defendants.
4 Feb 2021
The ANOC is struck out and the proceedings dismissed because (1) the complaint concerning Lakeview Estate is clearly time‑barred under s82(1) of the DDO and the applicant offered no sworn explanation or application for the court to exercise s82(3) discretion; (2) the ANOC fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action linking the Commission's conduct to the applicant's disability and thus is bound to fail; and (3) paragraphs 1,2 and 10 are scandalous, irrelevant and vexatious and must be removed. Given the claim is frivolous/vexatious and a repeat of prior dismissed litigation, costs are just…
28 Oct 2020
The strike out application was dismissed because the plaintiffs’ pleaded claims were at least prima facie arguable: court‑appointed receivers can, depending on facts, owe fiduciary duties to persons with a sufficient interest and those duties can include a duty to account and to disclose records; the claims were not plainly vexatious or an abuse; the court has power to grant retrospective leave and such leave is granted for the present action (subject to limited excision of words seeking relief for non‑parties).
7 Aug 2020
The summons to strike out was dismissed because, although the judge was sceptical that the pleaded misconduct amounted to conduct of Money Facts within s.724(1)(a), the petitioner’s novel construction was arguable and merited trial; materially identical matters were already before the court in related petitions so allowing the Petition to proceed would not significantly increase time or costs, and therefore discretion favoured refusing strike out and directing that the Petition be tried together with the 2018 petitions.
24 Dec 2007
The claims were struck out because, on assumed facts, no duty of care existed between the defendants and the plaintiff to correct or prevent the plaintiff's litigation choices, government counsel owed no higher duty to a lay opponent than private counsel, the defendants' procedural steps were lawful under the Rules (including O 62 rr 10 and 21(4)), and therefore the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious.
26 Oct 2007
The court struck out petitions that were plainly untenable because the pleaded wrongful conduct related to other companies or personal conduct and could not in substance be regarded as conduct of the affairs of the dormant shelf companies (HCMP 846, 848, 849, 851). The court refused to strike out petitions for property‑holding companies and operating companies (including Sparkling Wine, Step Further, Insomnia Singapore and others) because it was not plain and obvious that the alleged interdependence and interaction were insufficient to found unfair prejudice; leave to amend was granted for su…
2 Feb 2005
The petition was struck out because, assuming the facts pleaded, the petitioners had the means under the Articles and Joint Venture Agreement to prevent or remedy the complained-of conduct (50% shareholding with blocking rights), the principal complaints either did not concern the company’s affairs, were unexecuted proposals or ordinary commercial disagreements, and the inspection-related complaints were properly ventilated in separate proceedings; accordingly the petition disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process.
10 Jan 2000
The Master erred in striking out the Statement of Claim; the plaintiff was entitled to declaratory relief because the pleadings and the Defence disclose real issues rather than an academic question and Howard v Pickford was distinguishable on the facts, so the appeal is allowed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.