Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of pleading

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2026

CHIEF HOLDINGS (H.K.) LTD AND ANOTHER v. HE CHENGUANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1502
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2415/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: (1) it was not plain and obvious that the PRC judgments decided the issues necessary to found issue estoppel as to party identity, locus or payment; (2) there was no clear abuse of process given the narrower scope of the Mainland proceedings and enforcement difficulties; and (3) defects in particulars do not justify striking out rather than seeking further particulars. Costs were ordered against the applicants.
23 Jan 2025

LIP CHUNG SHEK v. LEE WAI KWAN EDMUND

Citation

[2025] HKDC 103
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4867/2023

The defendant's duress/misrepresentation case lacked requisite particulars and was affirmatively undermined by his conduct (sworn declaration and periodic repayments); however disputes over historical payments and the relationship with a third party raise genuine triable issues on calculation of indebtedness; therefore conditional leave to defend granted subject to payment into court of HK$1,480,700 within 28 days and Master's order set aside.
25 Mar 2022

DRAGON WORKSHOP LTD AND ANOTHER v. TREASURE EXPRESS INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 251
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2497/2018

The court allowed the amendment because the implied term sought was a conventional implication to prevent a party frustrating contractual obligations and was obvious from the pleaded factual background and express lease terms; the existing pleadings already contained particulars of the alleged alterations and regulatory issues, so further particulars were unnecessary, the amendment did not properly amount to an allegation of dishonesty, and in the exercise of judicial discretion leave to amend was granted.
1 Feb 2019

TSANG SIU TUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ARGYLE HOUSE (No 43 Argyle Street)(sued on its own behalf and representing all owners of Argyle House, No 43 Argyle Street erected on the remaining portion of Kowloon Inland Lot No 2245)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 464
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA166/2012

Leave to amend was refused in part because the proposed new defences and factual particulars were newly introduced at a very late stage without adequate explanation, the particulars were insufficient and vague (causing likely embarrassment and prejudice to the plaintiff), and allowing them would likely delay the scheduled trial; accordingly specified paragraphs were disallowed while other unopposed amendments were permitted.
2 Aug 2018

BRIAN MONTGOMERY v. CHUNG CHEUK HUNG, HERO

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1373/2015

The appeal is dismissed because the proposed amendments failed to comply with Order 82 r3(1): the amended pleadings conflated named direct recipients and ill‑defined classes, failed to state whether republication was pleaded as a separate cause or for aggravated damages, and did not provide the necessary particularity of republishers and recipients required to allow the defendant to respond and to advance defences including qualified privilege; therefore leave to amend was refused and the Master's costs order was upheld.
6 Oct 2017

何妙鸞 v. 鄺譪慧 AND OTHERS

Citation

何妙鸞 v. 鄺譪慧 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2367/2015

The re‑amended statement of claim was struck out because the pleading against the 2nd Defendant disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the pleadings against the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process for lack of particulars and material facts; disability discrimination claims were jurisdictionally inappropriate for the High Court and time‑barred; no amendment could cure the essential defects, so the appeal was dismissed and the action struck out with costs to the defendants.
31 Mar 2017

TALENT FOCUS EDUCATION CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN PO CHUN

Citation

TALENT FOCUS EDUCATION CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN PO CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1439/2015

The summonses for exchange of witness statements were adjourned sine die with liberty to restore rather than being withheld permanently because the plaintiffs failed to place admissible evidence showing real and specific prejudice from exchange (their timetabling questionnaire was insufficient), their pleadings already disclosed their case (weakening any right to silence), and discovery and particulars remain incomplete; the proper course is to revisit the issue after progress is reported.
24 Nov 2014

SZETO YUK LIN v. TSANG CHIU MO SAMUEL AND OTHERS

Citation

SZETO YUK LIN v. TSANG CHIU MO SAMUEL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2392/2008

The court ordered the plaintiff to provide precise particulars as to the nature of the alleged HK$150,000,000 injection into CSFL and imposed an unless order that paragraph 3(2) be struck out if full particulars were not provided by 4pm on 15 December 2014; the court declined to press the plaintiff for further particulars where she stated inability and left such matters to trial, and refused to require defendants to answer the plaintiff's overly broad requests 3 and 4 while ordering defendants to provide further particulars to the plaintiff's other requests dated 4 November 2014 (except reque…
22 Apr 2013

SAMLANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FUNG CHI FAI

Citation

SAMLANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FUNG CHI FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA318/2006

The court dismissed the application because the particulars sought were not necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs under O.18 r12(3B); the Annexure I statement of account and disclosed supporting documents supply the fundamental particulars, the defendant's denials properly put the plaintiff to prove its case at trial, and further microscopic transactional detail held by accountants/auditors is evidential and for trial/discovery not particulars; costs awarded to plaintiff.
9 Feb 2012

PAK WIN INVESTMENT LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. CHUNG YUET SHEUNG, LORRAIN AND OTHERS

Citation

PAK WIN INVESTMENT LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. CHUNG YUET SHEUNG, LORRAIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA419/2011

Paragraph 51 as pleaded did not sufficiently particularise the agreement and the unlawful acts attributed to the 3rd defendant such that it disclosed a reasonable cause of action against him; defects of pleading of this nature justify conditional strike‑out or an order to amend rather than immediate dismissal; the master\'s conditional approach was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.