15 Sept 2022
The first defendant's pleading failed to address the allegations in the claim, did not rebut key factual assertions and therefore disclosed no reasonable defence; formal defects were insufficient to save the pleading but the absence of any substantive defence required striking it out.
19 Feb 2014
Lorenzo's affidavit (Lorenzo 3) was found to be false, illusory and wilfully defective; his explanations (listed status, privatisation, third party refusal) were implausible or ex post facto and did not excuse non-compliance; documentary evidence supported that the requested documents were within Lorenzo's control; his non-compliance was deliberate and in bad faith; accordingly the court struck out his defence and entered judgment for Miranda, granted the declarations sought regarding repudiation and 50% beneficial ownership, ordered relief as per draft paragraphs and awarded costs on an inde…
19 Feb 2010
The Master did not impose an unlawful condition on the Order 14 hearing; he lawfully adjourned the summary judgment application and validly ordered interim payments given the defendant's unpaid occupation, and it was proper to provide that failure to comply with the interim payments order would trigger a future strike out of the defence; Law Shek Po does not establish that the Master's order was erroneous.
29 Apr 2008
Leave to appeal was refused because the Defendant failed to demonstrate an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success; the strike out of the defence was correctly founded on the pleadings and the conclusive effect of the s.75(3) certificate, and an objection procedure under s.64(1)(a) remained available, while the public interest ground was not made out.
24 May 2002
The 1st defendant's defence was struck out because the criminal convictions for the assaults conclusively established the facts relied upon by the plaintiff such that no reasonable defence could be pleaded; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
31 Aug 2001
The affirmation was properly struck out because it constituted evidence not a pleading; the defence disclosed no reasonable defence on the pleadings because any equitable interest of Mr Chan was subsumed in the Chinese written agreement which was not registered and therefore void against the plaintiff's properly registered legal charge under s.3(2) LRO; consequently the plaintiff's legal charge had priority and judgment for vacant possession against the 2nd defendant was correct, so the appeal was dismissed.
11 Feb 1999
The amended defence cured the pleaded defects; the strike out application achieved its purpose and the Plaintiffs are entitled to costs of and occasioned by the strike out application (including the prior hearing) and to costs thrown away by the Defendant's amendment; those costs are to be taxed if not agreed.
4 Nov 1997
Because the defendant had been convicted of forging the 1992 Chinese will, her defence and counterclaim had been struck out, and she offered no substantive reason for adjournment, the court held the Chinese document invalid as a testamentary instrument, pronounced the 25 April 1961 will as the true last will in solemn form, and granted Letters of Administration with that will annexed to the plaintiffs with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
25 Jul 1980
Defendant was holding over as a tenant at common law on 18 December 1979, the operative date of the amendment, therefore the tenancy became subject to Part II of the Ordinance and the plaintiff's strike out summons failed; pleadings must be amended to reflect Part II protection.
13 Dec 1977
The court refused to strike out the 1st Defendant's defence because it disclosed a possible reasonable defence (primary user/denial of subletting) and because the Particulars of Claim were defective for failing to plead the date of service of the notice to quit; additionally the court held it had no jurisdiction to order interim payments of mesne profits pending determination of the substantive issues (following Moore v. Assignment Courier Ltd). The Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the Particulars of Claim within 14 days and to re-serve them; no costs order was made.