Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out for no reasonable defence

Legal area

Court

3 Aug 2021

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2225
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL13/2011

The Court held that the Plaintiff's Statement of Case was sufficiently particularised for present purposes and complied with the Order; Hong Kong law (the lex fori) governs the entire enforcement action on the implied promise including assessment of damages; the Defendants' application for further particulars was dismissed; paragraphs of the Defendants' Response that pleaded PRC law as governing assessment of damages and that the Plaintiff should have returned to CIETAC were struck out as barred by issue estoppel, disclosure of no reasonable defence, or abuse of process; costs awarded to the…
4 Feb 2016

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. GENNON ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. GENNON ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC773/2015

The District Court held that the statutory scheme in the IRO manifests a clear legislative policy of 'pay first, argue later' which makes a stay of tax enforcement proceedings fundamentally incompatible with that regime; accordingly the Defence was struck out as disclosing no reasonable defence, judgment was entered for the Commissioner for the specified tax sum and the Taxpayer's summons for a stay was dismissed because the Australian approach was not open under local law and the Taxpayer failed to demonstrate sufficient merits or irreparable hardship.
16 Apr 2013

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHING YEUNG COLOUR PRINTING CO LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHING YEUNG COLOUR PRINTING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC2774/2012

Section 75(4) IRO precludes the court from entertaining pleas that the tax assessment is excessive or incorrect; the defendant's grounds (incorrect assessment, negotiations/legitimate expectation, hardship, constitutional challenge) fail or were not properly pleaded and the defence discloses no reasonable defence; judgment entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum with interest and costs.
2 Feb 2012

AU WO CHEUNG v. AU AH

Citation

AU WO CHEUNG v. AU AH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ249/2011

The defence, although legally deficient in particulars, cannot be struck out summarily under Order 18 r19(1)(a) because factual evidence is required to determine whether a promise existed and whether the defendant has a right to remain; accordingly the court refused to exercise the summary power and granted leave to amend the defence and to later amend the plaintiff's reply.
6 Oct 2010

AU-YEUNG YEE MAN v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

Citation

AU-YEUNG YEE MAN v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV208/2009

The defendant lacked standing to challenge the grant of probate because she was neither a beneficiary under the will nor entitled under intestacy; the will was properly executed and the deceased had testamentary capacity as evidenced by solicitor verification and medical evidence; accordingly the Defence and Counterclaim were properly struck out and the caveat removed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
10 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN TUNG

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN TUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1122/2004

The Defence and Counterclaim were struck out because the Defendant failed to plead requisite factual particulars to establish the alleged implied term or misrepresentation, produced no timely rescission under the Agreement and thus had a contractual obligation to complete; consequently the pleadings disclosed no reasonable defence and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff with damages to be assessed.
7 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN LAI LING RAINBOW

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN LAI LING RAINBOW
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ649/2004

The Defence and Counterclaim did not plead sufficient facts to establish an implied term, identify or support a misrepresentation, or show a lawful excuse to refuse completion; delay alone was not a contractual ground to refuse completion; accordingly the Defence and Counterclaim disclosed no reasonable defence and were struck out and judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages to be assessed and costs ordered nisi.
7 Dec 2006

HANG SENG FINANCE LTD v. HO YUEN CHAK

Citation

HANG SENG FINANCE LTD v. HO YUEN CHAK
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ771/2006

The defence and counterclaim disclosed no reasonable defence because the defendant failed to particularise errors in the bank's calculations despite an order to do so, the mortgage's conclusive evidence clause makes the bank's calculation prima facie binding, and a counterclaim does not bar a possession order; accordingly the court struck out the defence and counterclaim and entered judgment for the plaintiff for payment and possession.
1 Oct 1991

THE HONG KONG HOUSING SOCIETY v. NG LUNG NAM

Citation

THE HONG KONG HOUSING SOCIETY v. NG LUNG NAM
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8966/1991

The Defence raised triable issues as to the nature and enforceability of the occupier's rights (including a possible restriction on termination arising from prior agreement) and therefore disclosed a reasonable cause of defence; the application to strike out the Defence was dismissed.
11 Jan 1977

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. LEE CHI-LING

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. LEE CHI-LING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6256/1976

Because Part XI of the Inland Revenue Ordinance provides the exclusive statutory procedure to challenge assessments and s75(4) limits the District Court's jurisdiction in tax recovery proceedings, a plea that an assessment is null or incorrect cannot be entertained in District Court recovery proceedings; therefore the amended defence and counterclaim were struck out.