Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particularisation of pleadings

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2021

LU, CHENG TE RAYMOND v. YEH, SHING HANG KEVIN ARTHUR

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2686
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP612/2021

The application is dismissed because the 4th Footage was unavailable at the time the OS was filed (retention period lapsed), rendering the application academic; alternatively, even if available, the applicant failed to show cogent and compelling evidence of serious tortious or wrongful conduct or a reasonable basis for the intended claim under s41 HCO and Norwich Pharmacal criteria, and it was not shown the disclosure would likely yield substantial and worthwhile benefit; costs awarded to defendant.
30 Jun 2005

AXA CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PACIFIC CENTURY INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

AXA CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PACIFIC CENTURY INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9093/2000

The court held the proposed amendments defining SAMS Data and Client Data (with express limiting language) and the particulars of classes of documents were sufficiently pleaded when read as a whole given electronic storage realities; individual identification of every document was not required provided class definitions and available computer code details are supplied; and joinder of 31 additional defendants was ordered under O 15 R 4 because common issues predominated and efficient case management justified consolidation; costs reserved.
8 Feb 2005

CITIPOST (ASIA) LTD v. JULIAN ROBERT HOLLIDAY

Citation

CITIPOST (ASIA) LTD v. JULIAN ROBERT HOLLIDAY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV111/2004

The Court of Appeal held that the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction under the Ordinance extends to claims for sums of money arising from breaches of employment contracts including unliquidated but quantified claims that are properly particularised; the plaintiff's monetary claims therefore fall within the Labour Tribunal, the injunction claim was irrelevant or inadequately pleaded and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the stay pending Labour Tribunal determination.
5 Jul 2000

CHEUNG SAI FAN v. ARGOS ENGINEERING AND HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.

Citation

CHEUNG SAI FAN v. ARGOS ENGINEERING AND HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI482/1998

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant breached its duty to provide a safe workplace or that any such breach caused the wrist fracture; the scaffolding coupling bolt was not an unreasonable hazard and the floor was at most minimally wet with reasonable precautions taken by the employer, so judgment is entered for the defendant.
2 Mar 1998

CHAN CHUNG WAI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN CHUNG WAI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8721/1996

The Master's order was varied and partially set aside because (a) notices to the Companies Registry necessarily implicate dates of appointment and therefore the corresponding board and general meeting minutes are relevant and must be discovered for items (8) and (9); and (b) discovery of documents relating to brands (items (11) and (12)) is premature until the pleadings are particularised to identify which brands are disputed, so those items of the Master's order are set aside; costs were ordered in light of the parties' relative success.
3 Oct 1977

HO KIN CHEUNG v. CHAN CHI CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO KIN CHEUNG v. CHAN CHI CHUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1730/1976

Paragraph 6 of the amended Statement of Claim is a material allegation that is insufficiently particularised; the plaintiff is ordered to furnish the further particulars requested within 14 days, the Registrar's order of 15 September 1977 is set aside, and costs (including those before the Registrar and on appeal) are to be paid by the defendants as the event dictates.

Hong Kong Case Law

LU, CHENG TE RAYMOND v. YEH, SHING HANG KEVIN ARTHUR

AXA CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PACIFIC CENTURY INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS

CITIPOST (ASIA) LTD v. JULIAN ROBERT HOLLIDAY

CHEUNG SAI FAN v. ARGOS ENGINEERING AND HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.

CHAN CHUNG WAI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS

HO KIN CHEUNG v. CHAN CHI CHUN AND ANOTHER