Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading and particulars

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2024

劉永基 v. 房屋委員會上訴審裁小組

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3569
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2297/2024

Dismissal of the application was required because the applicant failed to identify the impugned decision or its date, failed to produce the decision or plead grounds as required by Order 53 r3(2), and failed to provide materials or specify any period to justify an extension of time; an application for legal aid does not ordinarily justify an extension; mandatory procedural rules apply to litigants in person.
28 Sept 2023

SUEN WAH FAI AND ANOTHER v. CIS GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND SPC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2493
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA699/2022

The Statement of Claim, as pleaded against Chung and Kwok, fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or dishonest assistance because it does not plead the essential factual basis for a fiduciary relationship or the particulars of assistance and dishonesty; the court will not import facts pleaded only against co‑defendants; however the defects may be curable and plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended statement of claim within a fixed period on stated procedural terms.
13 Jan 2023

張侃 v. 尚品匯(香港)國際貿易有限公司

Citation

[2023] HKCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP415/2022

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the short delay was excusable but the proposed grounds lacked reasonable prospect of success: the pleading objection to ministerial receipt was without merit; the judge’s inference that the defendant was used as Chen’s nominee was open on the evidence and not plainly wrong; Chen’s use of company chops did not constitute the requisite representation for apparent authority on these facts; and the finding of irrational/reckless reliance was justified. Accordingly the application for leave was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.
13 Aug 2015

PULSE MEDIATECH LTD v. UCAN TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS UCAN TECHNOLOGY (MACAU) CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PULSE MEDIATECH LTD v. UCAN TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS UCAN TECHNOLOGY (MACAU) CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1157/2014

The pleaded allegations, including the primary facts relied on for inferring knowledge, were not so defective as to be unsustainable; deficiencies should be cured by further and better particulars or amendment rather than striking out. The Master’s costs order was proportionate given the defendants' procedural conduct (empty letters and late skeleton argument).
9 Oct 2014

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1062/2012

The application for leave to issue third party notices was dismissed because the 2nd defendant failed to show a useful or proper purpose for joinder given the plaintiffs' pleaded claim focuses on conspiracy and dissipation of assets rather than audit compilation errors; the notice lacked the mandatory particulars required by O.16 r.2 and did not adequately plead reliance on the Contribution Ordinance or demonstrate the requisite causal link and "same damage"; joinder would cause disproportionate delay, cost and multi‑jurisdictional complication and therefore the Court exercised its discretion…
17 Nov 1994

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/1994

The Court held that pleading that a person was a de facto and/or a shadow director is permissible (either concurrently where facts support both or at least in the alternative) and dismissed Wheelock Marden's appeal against the addition of a de facto director averment; the Court also found paragraph 30 alleging fraudulent purposes adequately particularised and reinstated it; further and better particulars were ordered in part (notably net sale proceeds and answers to specified requests) while the remainder of the judge's refusal to order particulars stood; discovery was to be resolved by a con…
17 Nov 1994

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV25/1994

A person may be properly pleaded as a de facto director and/or a shadow director concurrently if the pleadings (and particulars) objectively support either or both roles; paragraph 30 alleging fraudulent purposes was sufficiently particularised and must be reinstated; certain further and better particulars must be supplied (notably net sale proceeds after deduction of expenses and encumbrances) while other requests fell within judicial discretion and were properly refused; parties to agree discovery by consent order.
17 Nov 1994

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/1994

The Court held that pleading that a person was a de facto and/or a shadow director is permissible (including conceivably both simultaneously) if done in accordance with pleading rules; Wheelock Marden's appeal against allowing the de facto director amendment was dismissed; the trial court erred in striking out paragraph 30 (fraudulent purposes) which was sufficiently pleaded and particularised and must be reinstated; certain further particulars must be supplied (net sale proceeds and specified requests) while other requests were correctly refused as falling within judicial discretion.