Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out applications

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2024

LAU MAN WAI JOSEPH AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG SUN LING SANNY, the Administratrix of the Estate of KWAN YAU HANG, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2477/2011

The court found the Reformists Camp had meritorious claims as established in the 2015 Judgment and that the Traditionalists Camp's insistence on a costs-protecting proviso was unreasonable and prolonged litigation; therefore the Traditionalists Camp (specified defendant groups) must pay the Plaintiffs' and specified defendant/third-party costs for the three actions up to and after the 2015 Judgment; the Koon (the Company) is not liable for those costs; the costs of the Solicitor/Secretary for Justice are to be indemnified and borne by the Traditionalists Camp as appropriate.
7 Feb 2024

TONG CUN MING v. CHEUNG SUN LING SANNY, the Administratrix of the Estate of KWAN YAU HANG, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP143/2011

Given the 2015 Judgment established the Reformists' meritorious claims and the Traditionalists persisted with appeals and strike-out applications that failed, the court exercised its discretion to order the Traditionalists Camp to pay the costs of the Plaintiffs and the SJ both up to and after the 2015 Judgment; the Koon is not liable for those costs as the disputes were essentially personal between factions.
7 Feb 2024

LAU MAN WAI JOSEPH AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG SUN LING SANNY, the Administratrix of the Estate of KWAN YAU HANG, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1013/2011

Given the findings in the 2015 Judgment and subsequent rulings, the Traditionalists Camp were not justified in their conduct and insistence on a proviso that prevented early settlement; therefore they must pay the costs of the Reformists Camp and the Secretary for Justice up to and after the 2015 Judgment, and the Koon should not be ordered to pay because the disputes were personal between the camps.
30 Nov 2023

WELLSON SILK TRADING LTD v. CHEUNG WAI YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3071
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA663/2022

The application to strike out was dismissed because the pleadings were not plainly and obviously unsustainable; disputed facts must be taken in the plaintiff's favour; replenishment of alleged undervalue did not necessarily dispose of equitable claims such as setting aside; ambiguities and lack of particulars as to fraud should be addressed by requests for particulars rather than striking out; accordingly the strike-out summons failed and costs were ordered nisi in favour of the plaintiff.
30 May 2022

ZHAO ZHU YI LIANG 對 CHAO YI HONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1821
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2036/2020

The bankruptcy order vested any rights in action of the plaintiff in the Official Receiver under ss2 and 58 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; the Official Receiver declined to permit continuation or to assign those rights back to the plaintiff, so the plaintiff lacked standing and all his applications were properly struck out with costs to the defendant.
16 Dec 2020

KWONG LAI YAN v. SCOTT BINGHAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1193
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO12/2019

The court struck out the claimant's sexual harassment claim against the 1st respondent as plainly time-barred and held it was not just and equitable under s86(3) to permit the out-of-time claim given delay, lack of credible explanation and prejudice; consequently the vicarious liability claim against the 2nd respondent for that harassment was struck out; however the employer victimisation claim against the 2nd respondent was allowed to proceed because it could constitute an act extending over a period under s86(5)(b) and it was not plain and obvious that it was time-barred; leave to amend ple…
14 May 2019

LYYC v. CHL & CSMS, THE EXECUTRICES OF THE ESTATE OF CGSK ALSO KNOWN AS CSKG, DECEASED

Citation

[2019] HKCA 521
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP31/2019

The Judge's refusal to strike out was correct because there are contested facts and the legal question whether the Applicant was 'maintained immediately before his death' cannot be resolved on affidavit; consequently there is no reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal and leave to appeal is refused.
24 Jan 2018

WONG ROCKY LOK KUN v. WU KWONG SUM

Citation

[2018] HKDC 70
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2514/2015

On the pleaded facts the psychiatric injury to the plaintiff husband was not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant obstetrician, the asserted chain of causation was too indirect and remote, and it would be disproportionate and unjust to impose a duty to avoid that harm; accordingly the amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out.
17 Feb 2017

WONG SIK YUK v. TSUI LEN

Citation

WONG SIK YUK v. TSUI LEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1194/2015

Applicant failed to meet the threshold in s14AA(4) because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; appellate interference with the exercise of discretion in refusing to strike out was not justified; the costs order nisi should not be varied because the claim was not hopeless and the court correctly exercised its discretion to grant a certificate for two counsel for the leave-to-appeal summons given the complexity, substantial amount at stake and involvement of PRC law; costs were ordered to follow the event and to be paid by the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.
24 Oct 2014

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR

Citation

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP19/2011

The Master refused to revise his taxation: he found the times and fees claimed were within reason or had been reduced where excessive; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate error in the taxation; matters outside the list of objections would not be considered; the review summons was dismissed and a costs order nisi made against the plaintiff.