Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out under order 18

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2020

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3033
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2880/2015

On the available evidence and subsequent public disclosures/documents the pleaded Qilu Claim (RASOC 44D(1)-(2)) and the corresponding paragraphs of the plaintiffs' witness statements were bound to fail and were struck out; the Shanshui Heavy Claim (including para 44D(6)(b)) and the Professional Fees Claim against Zhang Snr were not shown to be frivolous or an abuse and were not struck out; consequently the applications to discharge or vary the Mareva injunction were dismissed and the Mareva order maintained subject to the limited striking out described.
23 Jan 2020

LAI NG NUI AND OTHERS v. FUNG TIN YAU

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 252
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2225/2016

The Court dismissed all three sets of appeals: (1) the 2078 strike out appeal was dismissed because the counterclaim alleging assumption of fiduciary duties disclosed a reasonable cause of action and was not plainly and obviously unsustainable; (2) the appeals against dismissal of the 2998-3000 O.14 summonses were dismissed because the respondent's defences (Withdrawal/Wyse Agreements and related estoppel/Duomatic arguments) raised triable issues and summary judgment/conditional leave to defend was inappropriate; and (3) the 133/136 derivative strike out appeals were dismissed because the res…
13 Jan 2017

LAVERY CO LTD v. WONG LEE YUK PING AGNES AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAVERY CO LTD v. WONG LEE YUK PING AGNES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA393/2016

By the time the statement of claim was verified (March 2016) the plaintiff had the records and knowledge to support its primary case that the goods were not returned and there was no resale; because plaintiff also pleaded it had no records of any return or delivery, pleading an alternative inconsistent case that the Dongguan Kaiying (and by parity Kam Lung/Shunda) transactions were genuine was impermissible and those alternative paragraphs must be excised; leave to amend granted subject to excision and consequential directions and costs order nisi.
18 May 2015

SPEED SOURCING LTD AND OTHERS v. RAINBOW STATE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SPEED SOURCING LTD AND OTHERS v. RAINBOW STATE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2298/2013

D1's second answers to requests for particulars were, in the majority, vague, evasive and in breach of the Consent Order and the 08.09.14 Order; however, strike out would be disproportionate at this stage so the court imposed an unless order requiring full compliance by a fixed date (8 June 2015) with specified consequences. The stay of taxation failed because the claims against D2 and D3 had been finally disposed of by the earlier order and so their costs taxation should not be stayed; the amendment application by D2/D3 to remove their names was dismissed as unnecessary; D1 failed to demonst…
12 Nov 2014

PATRIARCH PARTNERS MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC v. WONG SIU WA, SAMMY AND ANOTHER

Citation

PATRIARCH PARTNERS MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC v. WONG SIU WA, SAMMY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA865/2013

The amended statement of claim failed to plead the necessary elements of fraudulent misrepresentation (no pleaded representation or duty to disclose; no pleaded knowledge/recklessness, intention, reliance and damage as required), was barred by the entire agreement clause in the 2010 Deed, and therefore the deceit and consequential conspiracy claims were unsustainable and the claim against D2 must be struck out; service out of jurisdiction on D2 is set aside.
25 Nov 2010

YEUNG, KWONG TAT EDWARD v. TANRICH BULLION LTD

Citation

YEUNG, KWONG TAT EDWARD v. TANRICH BULLION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1695/2010

The indorsements of the writs for the 21 actions disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were incomprehensible; the plaintiff failed to attend the show cause hearing and did not file the notices of discontinuance in court, therefore the court exercised its powers under Order 1B and Order 18 rule 19 to strike out the indorsements and dismiss all 21 actions with costs to the defendants assessed summarily.
17 Apr 2008

CHAN MAN TIN MICHAEL v. CHENG LEEKY

Citation

CHAN MAN TIN MICHAEL v. CHENG LEEKY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA670/2006

The pleaded counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the alleged considerations ('plain loyalty and chastity' and promise that the plaintiff would cohabit and 'live happily together') are not valid legal consideration and thus the oral agreement is unenforceable; accordingly the counterclaim was struck out under O.18 r.19(1)(a).
12 Apr 2007

NG CHUN KONG CALVIN t/a KO AND CO v. FIRST STAR DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

NG CHUN KONG CALVIN t/a KO AND CO v. FIRST STAR DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV81/2006

The Court of Appeal held that the construction of the retainer and the existence of the pleaded implied term, and the related question of frustration, involved material factual issues (surrounding circumstances, practice/custom and parties' conduct) unsuitable for summary disposal under Order 14A or striking out; accordingly the appeal succeeded, the striking out and summary judgment below were set aside and the matter remitted for trial so that the factual issues can be resolved and the contract properly construed.