Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike-out (order 18 rule 19)

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2024

文彩玉對詹耀明及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3218
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP508/2023

The strike-out application was dismissed because undisputed evidence established the bill was only first notified to the plaintiff in November 2022 (negating the limitation defence), the solicitors failed to fulfil their obligation to notify the client of accruing costs per professional conduct guidelines, and material credibility and documentary errors by the solicitors meant it was not plain and obvious that the originating summons disclosed no reasonable cause; accordingly the court would not strike out the proceeding.
13 Oct 2022

黃金安及另一人對新鴻基地產發展有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1149
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ346/2022

Plaintiffs had, with full knowledge, executed the 2018 application and undertaking accepting the contested terms; those terms were fundamental to the allocation and could not be struck out or rewritten on grounds of asserted unfairness; the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action against either defendant and the strike-out applications were therefore allowed.
1 Aug 2018

黃桂生對鄭禮春及另一人

Citation

[2018] HKDC 888
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ738/2018

The alleged oral tenancy was legally invalid because its term ('until the claimant's appeal/review process is completed') is uncertain; therefore the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out; consequently no interim injunction for possession is granted and possession is awarded to the registered owner under case management powers.
23 Nov 2005

NATAMON PROTPAKORN v. CITIBANK, NA

Citation

NATAMON PROTPAKORN v. CITIBANK, NA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA190/2005

The Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the written Agreement expressly required any amendment to be in writing signed by the Bank, precluding the pleaded oral/course of dealings variations or implied terms; no clear and unequivocal representations supported estoppel; Clause II.7.01(g) confers on the Bank an absolute discretion to terminate (subject to good faith) on the events pleaded including concerns about source/control of funds; accordingly the claim failed and must be struck out.

Hong Kong Case Law

文彩玉 對 詹耀明及另一人

黃金安及另一人 對 新鴻基地產發展有限公司及另一人

黃桂生 對 鄭禮春及另一人

NATAMON PROTPAKORN v. CITIBANK, NA

文彩玉對詹耀明及另一人

黃金安及另一人對新鴻基地產發展有限公司及另一人

黃桂生對鄭禮春及另一人