Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out under o.18 r.19

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2021

ASIAHI IWASA WA & ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD v. SHIBAKAWA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2445
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA969/2014

The court dismissed the Defendant's 1st Notice of Appeal rather than allowing withdrawal because no exceptional circumstances were shown and the Defendant had behaved unreasonably; the court granted leave to amend the 2nd NOA but ordered the Defendant to pay costs of that amendment; the 2nd Appeal was dismissed on the merits and as out of time such that Master Nip had not erred in dismissing the strike out application and awarding 50% costs; costs were ordered against the Defendant including party‑and‑party costs for the earlier period and indemnity costs for the period of unreasonable conduc…
1 Feb 2018

JIM CHIU YUEN v. C.L. CHOW & MACKSION CHAN (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1113/2017

On the pleaded facts (assumed true for strike out), the 2nd and 3rd defendants owed a duty of care to Castle World under the threefold test, the assumption of responsibility test and as an ordered incremental development of authority; consequently the plaintiff's claim seeks to recover loss that merely reflects loss of the company and is therefore a prohibited claim for reflective loss and discloses no reasonable cause of action, so the Statement of Claim against the 2nd and 3rd defendants is struck out.
21 Apr 2017

莊裕安訴香港終審庭及另四人

Citation

莊裕安訴香港終審庭及另四人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA244/2017

The originating process was struck out because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the First Defendant (CFA) is not a juridical person that can be sued, the claims against the Judicial Registrar and judges were not maintainable and amounted to an abuse of process, and the summary application procedure under CFA Rule 7 had been properly available; therefore dismissal under O.18 r.19 was warranted to protect judicial resources and public confidence.
11 Aug 2015

莫偉翔 v. 香港神托會 AND OTHERS

Citation

莫偉翔 v. 香港神托會 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2597/2005

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the plaintiff's prolonged and inexcusable delay amounted to abuse of process (warehousing the claims) justifying striking out; (2) the claim against the sponsoring Society disclosed no reasonable cause of action (no pleaded basis for vicarious liability or control); (3) the School and Teachers' communications were plainly protected by qualified privilege absent pleaded and evidenced actual malice; and (4) the consolidated statement of claim was scandalous, prolix and beyond reasonable salvage; accordingly the statement of claim was struck out and the actio…
5 Jun 2015

YANG LONG SHAN v. CHAN HAU KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

YANG LONG SHAN v. CHAN HAU KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1265/2011

The court refused the plaintiff's amendments and struck out the Statement of Claim because the pleaded cause of action was founded on agreements that, if loans, contravened s.24 of the Money Lenders Ordinance and were unenforceable; the proposed amendments did not remove reliance on those agreements or provide material to recharacterise the transactions as investments, and allowing the amendments would effectively circumvent the statutory prohibition, therefore the claim was obviously unsustainable and properly struck out.
29 May 2012

DRANSFIELD HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. PEARL ORIENTAL OIL LTD

Citation

DRANSFIELD HOLDINGS LTD (in Liquidation) v. PEARL ORIENTAL OIL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1392/2011

The amended statement of claim was struck out and the action dismissed. The court held there was no sustainable cause of action against the defendant under s.60 CPO because the disposition was to its separate wholly owned subsidiary POLH, POLH was not shown to be a sham or mere cloak and there was no basis to lift the corporate veil. The plaintiff’s claim amounted to reflective loss and was unsustainable. The s.266 Companies Ordinance claim likewise had no merit because the transferor was V1988 (not DH), POLH was not a creditor or associate of DH and the statutory periods did not capture the…
4 May 2010

TANG WAI CHO v. TANG WAI LEUNG

Citation

TANG WAI CHO v. TANG WAI LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2207/2007

Strike out dismissed because the plaintiff established a resulting trust by advancing the purchase monies and could enforce the proprietary interest without relying on the alleged illegal purpose; therefore illegality did not bar recovery. The order for sale and payment into court was refused because there was no basis to deprive the plaintiff of the property pending trial and the defendant must accept the consequences of his private sale agreement.
20 Mar 2008

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CARPE DIEM PUBLICATIONS LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CARPE DIEM PUBLICATIONS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC4335/2007

The judge held that the Commissioner lawfully estimated the Defendant's liability under s.59 IRO where no acceptable audited return was filed, that the s.75(3) certificate is conclusive evidence entitling recovery, that s.75(4) ousts the District Court from entertaining pleas that the tax is excessive or incorrect and that the Defendant had available statutory objection and appeal remedies; consequently the Defence disclosed no reasonable defence and the Master’s order striking out the Defence and entering judgment was upheld.
11 Mar 2008

NATAMON PROTPAKORN v. CITIBANK, N.A.

Citation

NATAMON PROTPAKORN v. CITIBANK, N.A.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA190/2005

The proposed amended statement of claim was bound to fail: the plaintiff was bound by the signed Standard Form FX Agreement; clause requiring written amendments precluded the alleged oral collateral agreements; the pleaded representations were promissory (future) not actionable misrepresentations of fact; estoppel and duty of care claims lacked prospects; and the exemption clause challenge was premature and plaintiff likely not a consumer given her sophistication and large trading lines. Accordingly the Master's order granting leave to amend was set aside.
16 May 2006

MA HING YIN CAROLINE v. CROWNCITY ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MA HING YIN CAROLINE v. CROWNCITY ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI83/2005

Issuing and prosecuting proceedings in respect of estate and dependants' claims without proper authority (knowing that authority was in question) amounted to acting improperly or without reasonable cause; that conduct caused wasted costs (strike out, appeal and amendment costs) and justified ordering the solicitors Messrs Cheung, Fung & Hui to pay the defendants' costs, taxed on the common fund basis, with certificate for counsel; order nisi made in respect of specified further costs.