15 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because no reviewable decision existed at the time of the leave application; therefore there was no cause of action and the appeal fails.
14 Nov 2023
Where one tortious act gives rise to different types of loss (personal injury and property damage) they arise from the same factual situation and constitute a single cause of action; therefore the Property Damage Claim could properly be pursued in the District Court given the claim was validly commenced in the High Court and transferred, and Brunsden v Humphrey should not be followed in Hong Kong.
19 Nov 2021
Leave to appeal was granted on Grounds 4 and 5 to permit the Court of Appeal to determine whether the Brunsden rule should be followed in Hong Kong (i.e. whether one negligent occurrence giving rise to personal injury and property damage is a single cause of action); leave was refused on Grounds 1–3 and 6; a stay of execution pending determination of the appeal was granted; costs of the summons to be in the cause with certificate for counsel.
22 Oct 2021
The tribunal correctly struck out the claim as it arose from decisions under the Legal Aid Ordinance and did not disclose a private civil cause of action, and the applicant failed to show the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or erred in law; therefore permission to appeal is refused under Cap.338 s.28.
13 Aug 2021
The District Court lacks jurisdiction to try the HK$11,421 property damage claim because that monetary tort claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal under s5 and the Schedule of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance; personal injury and property damage are distinct causes of action so the settlement of the personal injury claim by consent order removes any basis for maintaining the property damage claim in the District Court; the Court cannot transfer the action to the Small Claims Tribunal and must strike out the wrongly maintained claim; accordingly the plain…
18 Nov 2020
The Statement of Claim pleaded sufficient material facts — the employment relationship, control of bank access, particulars of six alleged unauthorised transfers and the total amount taken — and it is not necessary to plead the legal characterisation of those facts; the claim was not plainly unsustainable and therefore the striking out application failed.
18 Oct 2019
Strike-out granted: claim against second respondent dismissed because the firm is not the employer and therefore no liability arises under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance; claim against first respondent struck out because the parties had accepted and the first respondent had paid the Labour Department assessment with no appeal, so re-litigating the same matter was an abuse of the court's process and disclosed no cause of action.
20 Sept 2019
The dismissal of the striking‑out application was affirmed because the Confirmation and pleaded facts suffice to disclose a reasonable cause of action for goods sold and delivered; the summary judgment was set aside because the buyer raised an arguable defence supported by factual disputes and the plaintiff's affirmations contained material deviations from the pleaded case, creating triable issues and preventing verification of the claim.
4 Jul 2019
The originating summons was dismissed because no cause of action had arisen and the declarations sought were premature and would amount to advisory opinions; the plaintiff failed to plead or prove any breach and the contractual clauses relied upon required plaintiff verification rather than imposing an obligation on the defendant, rendering the proceedings misconceived.
13 Jun 2019
The summons to strike out was dismissed because the Amended Application disclosed a statutory cause of action within the employees compensation regime, the proviso (b) exclusion was not pleaded and therefore could not be resolved on strike out, and disputed factual matters including credibility must be tried rather than determined at interlocutory stage.