Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out procedure

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2024

SIR ELLY KADOORIE & SONS LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MESSRS SIMMONS & SIMMONS) v. SAMANTHA JANE BRADLEY

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1070
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV194/2023

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's success on appeal and in resisting the First Summons was substantially attributable to the newly advanced Ground 3A (a claim for a free‑standing injunction for harassment), and having considered the matter afresh the fair exercise of the court's broad discretion on costs required that the Order Nisi (no order as to costs of the First Summons, the Amendment Summons and the appeal) be made absolute; the Plaintiff's summons to vary the Order Nisi was therefore dismissed and the Defendant awarded costs of the variation summons (HK$29,696).
19 Mar 2020

NG, CHRISTINA v. FRIEDMANN PACIFIC ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 442
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW326/2018

On the facts the court concluded it was plain and obvious that a winding-up order would not be made: the companies were solvent with highly liquid assets, there was credible evidence the respondent could finance a buy-out, and the Family Court has adequate and appropriate powers to determine and effect a just distribution of the matrimonial/company assets; accordingly the petitions were dismissed by consent (and would in any event have been struck out or stayed).
29 May 2019

GENG HUA ZHONG AND ANOTHER v. LI SHU HON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1374
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW403/2017

The strike-out application was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that the winding-up relief would fail: there were particular reasons to retain winding-up as an alternative, namely real doubts about the 1st respondent's ability to finance a buyout and the need to investigate the Group accounts before ruling out winding-up.
9 Jun 2017

YIP SHUNG KIN AND ANOTHER v. YIP WING CHING

Citation

YIP SHUNG KIN AND ANOTHER v. YIP WING CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP30/2016

Unchallenged credible witness evidence proved due execution and testamentary capacity and affirmative evidence showed knowledge and approval; the alleged beneficiary involvement did not attract the Barry v Butlin vigilance test and the defendant failed to particularise or provide evidence of undue influence, so no triable issue exists and summary judgment granting probate and striking out the counterclaim is appropriate and costs follow the event.
10 Mar 2017

YAU SAU CHUN v. YAU TIM WO

Citation

YAU SAU CHUN v. YAU TIM WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP9/2016

The uncontradicted, clear evidence from the solicitor that the 2003 will was prepared in accordance with the deceased's instructions, interpreted to him in Punti and executed by him, created a strong presumption of knowledge and approval which the defendant failed to rebut with the clearest evidence; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the defendant's counterclaim was struck out.
8 Sept 2015

KHALIL MUHAMMAD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NAM YEUNG MANSION (MUT WAH STREET)

Citation

KHALIL MUHAMMAD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NAM YEUNG MANSION (MUT WAH STREET)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1429/2013

Defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff's evidence that the writ was inserted into the defendant's letterbox on 3 July 2014; accordingly service was deemed on 10 July 2014 and occurred within the 12-month validity of the writ; the defendant did not demonstrate a plain and obvious case for strike out or abuse of process, so the summons was dismissed and the action continued.
23 Jul 2015

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2003/2013

The application to strike out and to determine the legal question under RHC O14A was dismissed because the plaintiffs' resulting trust claim and the defendants' in pari delicto defence depend on disputed factual issues (payment of HK$1 million, the Deceased's knowledge and intention, and which solicitor acted for whom) that cannot be resolved on affidavit; therefore the claim is not obviously unsustainable and must proceed to trial.
30 Jun 2015

CHANG KING TO v. CHEUNG & CHOY, a firm of solicitors

Citation

CHANG KING TO v. CHEUNG & CHOY, a firm of solicitors
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV257/2014

The claim failed as a matter of law because no duty of care was owed by the solicitors to the non‑client plaintiff in the circumstances: the solicitors acted on instructions given by the co‑owner (or at least there was no evidence to the contrary), the authorities relied on were distinguishable, and the co‑owner had available remedies; accordingly the amended statement of claim disclosed no sustainable cause of action and was correctly struck out.
9 Feb 2015

CHAN KWOK MAN v. NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD

Citation

CHAN KWOK MAN v. NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC186/2013

The court refused to strike out the applicant's employees compensation claim because the validity and construction of the Discharge Form raise fact-sensitive issues (mistake/non est factum, possible misrepresentation, lack of evidence from respondent) that cannot be resolved summarily; therefore the claim is not plainly unsustainable and must proceed to trial; respondent's summons dismissed.
3 Dec 2014

CHINA CAPITAL LTD v. CHU SAN HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA CAPITAL LTD v. CHU SAN HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2367/2012

The strike out application failed because the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to trace the net proceeds of sale into the hands of the 4th defendant and to allege dishonest assistance; mixing with other suitors' funds did not defeat tracing; and the existence of a consent order releasing funds did not preclude a dishonesty allegation where the prior charge was not disclosed to the court.