Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

No reasonable cause of action

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2025

YIK PING CHUI v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA978/2023

The appeal was dismissed and the strike out upheld because the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the EOC, the alleged conduct was not actionable (the colour change was a lawful commemoration and not a threat), any duty of care was absent or too wide and the alleged injuries were not reasonably foreseeable or were too remote; further the claim was frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and an abuse of process given the unimplemented substitution order.
10 Mar 2023

NG KAM CHEUNG v. CHU KOON FAT DAVID in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of CHU KAM SANG, deceased, and in his personal capacity

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA671/2020

The court held that the pleaded oral inquiries and requests (2008–2019) were not sufficiently particularised or equivalent to the written 'notice' required by clause 2; the plaintiff's written notice of 14 August 2019 crystallised his interest so the cause of action did not accrue before 15 May 2014; therefore the limitation defence was not manifestly dispositive and the strike-out application failed; because the counterclaim is inextricably bound with the main claim, summary judgment on the counterclaim also failed.
30 Jul 2021

范敏怡小姐對肯尼狄律師行(胡百豪大律師)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP537/2021

The originating process and accompanying affidavit failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action; the allegations were unsupported, rambling and largely identical to matters already litigated and struck out in prior proceedings, rendering the new claim frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; accordingly the court struck out and revoked the originating process and ordered provisional costs to the defendant.
13 Jan 2020

SUM YEE MING 對 THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 125
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA837/2019

The appeal is dismissed because the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the first defendant, amounted to a collateral attack on final determinations in earlier proceedings and was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious constituting abuse of process; consequently the strike-out order was upheld and indemnity costs were ordered with directions for the bill of costs and response deadlines.
11 Dec 2018

QIANHAI XINHUAKANG FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (SHENZHEN) LTD v. CHEN JIARONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA377/2018

The court refused the strike‑out application because, accepting the pleaded facts as true, the Amended Writ and ASOC on their face disclosed a prima facie cause of action against the 2nd and 7th defendants: the pleadings adequately alleged agency/representation and/or ratification and pleaded implied terms by necessity/obvious inference; the question of consideration could be resolved at trial if those defendants are found to be parties; and the abuse of process argument failed when appropriate evidential material was considered. Therefore the pleadings were not bound to fail and strike‑out w…
20 Jul 2016

藍旭鋒先生對香港政府及另一人

Citation

藍旭鋒先生對香港政府及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1156/2015

The pleadings against the Hong Kong Government disclosed no reasonable cause of action because, even if the alleged noise/disturbance existed, the Housing Department and Police were not legally responsible for other tenants' conduct and had taken investigatory steps; the statements were frivolous/vexatious and constituted an abuse of process (including duplicative proceedings and failure to provide necessary particulars or medical evidence to support the large damages claim). Accordingly the writs/statements against the Government were strike‑out and the claims dismissed; costs were awarded t…
25 Nov 2010

YEUNG, KWONG TAT EDWARD v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

Citation

YEUNG, KWONG TAT EDWARD v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1668/2010

The indorsements of the 21 writs were incomprehensible and disclosed no reasonable cause of action; the plaintiff failed to attend the show cause hearing; consequently the court lawfully exercised its powers under Order 1B and Order 18 r 19 to strike out the indorsements and dismiss the 21 actions with costs to the defendants.
25 Nov 2010

YEUNG, KWONG TAT EDWARD v. AEON CREDIT SERVICE (ASIA) COMPANY LTD

Citation

YEUNG, KWONG TAT EDWARD v. AEON CREDIT SERVICE (ASIA) COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1671/2010

The indorsements of the 21 writs did not disclose any reasonable cause of action, the plaintiff failed to attend the show cause hearing to justify the indorsements, and the court therefore properly exercised its powers under Order 1B and Order 18 r.19 to strike out the indorsements and dismiss the actions with costs to the defendants.