Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike-out for no reasonable cause of action

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2023

POLYLINE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHING LIN CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 235
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV139/2021

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part: the Recorder's strike-out was set aside except for the unlawful means conspiracy claim and that part of the constructive trust claim based on conspiracy. The Recorder was wrong to strike out the resulting trust and other claims on the ground that the transfers were authorised by the plaintiff's pleaded business model (demurrability) and wrong to sustain strike-out on contractual estoppel at this stage; conspiracy pleaded without agreement particulars was properly struck out; limitation and discovery issues raised factual disputes unsuitable for…
11 Oct 2021

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2816
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA279/2021

The pleaded claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because it sought the purchase price rather than a recognisable form of loss and was contractually barred by the Integrated Account Terms which permitted refusal/cancellation and limited liability; the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria and would not affect the outcome; accordingly the master’s strike-out order was correctly upheld and the appeal dismissed.
5 Jul 2013

林建忠對警務處長

Citation

林建忠對警務處長
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA329/2012

The claim was struck out because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the plaintiff could not base a negligence claim on rights and standards (as articulated in Lam Siu Po and human rights/Basic Law materials) that post‑dated the 1989–1990 disciplinary hearings, and the claim was also prejudicial and time‑barred in the circumstances, justifying dismissal on a strike‑out application.
30 Jun 2010

PARK YOUNG SOOK v. SHARON MELLOY

Citation

PARK YOUNG SOOK v. SHARON MELLOY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA763/2010

The claim was struck out because all impugned acts were performed in the judge's judicial capacity and therefore attract immunity under Article 85 Basic Law and s71 District Court Ordinance; none of the impugned orders had been quashed on appeal and the plaintiff failed to plead or adduce evidence of malice and lack of reasonable and probable cause, so the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Additionally, the court is not required to provide a state‑funded interpreter in civil proceedings.
6 Mar 2008

CHOW YAT TIM v. TANG HING KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOW YAT TIM v. TANG HING KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW396/2007

On the pleaded facts and documents, there was no real prospect of a winding-up order because the Company was solvent and commercially viable, s.168A provided an adequate alternative remedy that could compensate the petitioner, and an innocent minority shareholder would be prejudiced by winding up; accordingly the winding-up prayer was struck out as plain and obvious.
17 Dec 2003

WONG TAK KEUNG, STANLEY v. THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GRENVILLE HOUSE

Citation

WONG TAK KEUNG, STANLEY v. THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GRENVILLE HOUSE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2003

The Court held the strike-out was improper because the Application pleaded facts (to be assumed on strike-out) showing the solicitors' retainer was historically and likely to be over the statutory threshold and it was at least arguable that s.20A(2) is a discrete mandatory provision (incorporated from the Code) requiring procurement by invitation to tender; the legal viability of that cause of action was fact-sensitive and could not be disposed of on strike-out. The judge's prior conclusion that s.20A(1) and s.20A(2) were merely directory was set aside.
6 May 2003

TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. CHIME CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. CHIME CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4146/2001

The court held (1) the petitioners' abuse summons was dismissed because the Company was not estopped — the earlier proceedings did not create identity of cause, parties or subject‑matter and interlocutory decisions did not finally determine the legal issue; (2) prayer (3) as pleaded (payment of dividends to petitioners) disclosed no reasonable cause of action and is struck out because dividends are prima facie assets of the company and restitution for company loss is properly within derivative jurisdiction; (3) proposed amendments seeking restitution for the HK$4.5 billion loans to CAL were r…
28 Jan 1992

NISSEI SANGYO AMERICA, LTD v. PHILIP LAWRENCE CHOY

Citation

NISSEI SANGYO AMERICA, LTD v. PHILIP LAWRENCE CHOY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV38/1991

The Court of Appeal held that it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' interlocutory claim for discovery lacked reasonable cause; the pleadings raised arguable bases under Norwich Pharmacal and equitable tracing (the pleadings alleged agency/fiduciary relationships and fraud/mistake), and the affidavits did not establish abuse or that alternative avenues made the discovery unnecessary, therefore the struck paragraphs and parts of the prayer must be restored and amendment permitted.
2 Feb 1989

RICHARDSON GREENSHIELDS OF CANADA (PACIFIC) LTD v. KEUNG CHAK KIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

RICHARDSON GREENSHIELDS OF CANADA (PACIFIC) LTD v. KEUNG CHAK KIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL51/1988

The third party claim was struck out because the Commodities Trading Ordinance did not impose a statutory duty on the Exchange to keep the market open that gave rise to a civil action for damages, the pleaded rules lacked independent statutory force, and a common law negligence claim would fail for lack of duty, overriding policy reasons and non-recoverability of the asserted pure economic loss; accordingly the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action.