Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading standards

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

郭志文對機電工程署

Citation

[2026] HKDC 730
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5878/2025

The writ and particulars failed to plead the fundamental elements of a defamation claim (no specific defamatory words, no pleaded publication to third parties); the complained-of documents were internal disciplinary communications attractive of qualified privilege which claimant did not rebut with evidence of malice; the claim was therefore frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process and must be struck out.
24 Jun 2025

覃錫鴻對金至尊珠寶(香港)有限公司, 金至尊管理服務有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2685
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1379/2024

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success: the amended statement of claim failed to disclose essential elements of a defamation cause of action (no pleaded publication to third parties, no pleaded defamatory words or particulars, no causal link to the massive claimed quantum) and the defects were incurable on the face of the pleading; the Master's costs order was not shown to be unreasonable.
5 Apr 2024

呂良森對警務處和警務處處長蕭澤頣

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1223/2023

The court struck out the statement of claim and dismissed the action because the present claim re‑litigated matters already finally determined (res judicata) and therefore constituted an abuse of process; alternatively the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, were vague and devoid of supporting facts and were frivolous/vexatious, warranting strike‑out and dismissal and an order for costs to the defendants.
15 Mar 2023

單莉雅對勞杰民

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA36/2023

The summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory judicial review procedures (no permission, no Form 86), failed to specify the decision or public function to be reviewed, failed to plead facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and attempted to pursue remedies that belong in the family court or by appeal, rendering the proceedings legally and procedurally untenable.
28 Jun 2019

SOCIEDADE NACIONAL DE COMBUSTÍVEIS DE ANGOLA-EMPRESA PUBLICA v. CHINA SONANGOL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1443
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP670/2018

The petition and affidavits fail to plead contemporaneous facts establishing a binding mutual understanding or legitimate expectation that would limit the majority shareholder’s legal rights; consequently no serious issue to be tried under s.724 is shown and, in any event, the only substantive relief claimed is a buy‑out making interlocutory injunctions unnecessary; the interlocutory application is dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.
7 Mar 2019

LIU HANG KUEN v. LI YIM FONG

Citation

[2019] HKDC 295
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3416/2016

Leave to appeal refused because applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's factual findings that the defendant was not enriched and that payments did not pass through her were properly reached on the evidence, the change of position defence was factually pleaded and available, and legal arguments re timing of enrichment and historic authorities did not establish error of law.
1 Jun 2018

TAO SOH NGUN (also known as LO TO LI KWAN or LO TO LEE KWAN) v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3246/2016

The court allowed the contested amendments because the matters to be incorporated were already pleaded in the Reply and in issue between the parties, no new factual averments were introduced, and there would be no surprise or prejudice to the defendant; pleading 'gross negligence' was permitted as a legal conclusion based on existing pleaded facts and not demurrable in the circumstances; the defendant's application for adjournment was refused.
29 Mar 2018

MAKHSSIAN TRAJAN VAHE v. CHEERLORD INVESTMENT LTD T/A W HONG KONG

Citation

[2018] HKDC 351
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ88/2017

The Statement of Claim failed to plead the necessary elements of a copyright claim: it did not identify any original work in which copyright subsists, relied on a title/name for copyright which is not protectable, and did not identify any primary or secondary infringing acts; consequently it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out.
9 Mar 2018

LAVERY CO LTD v. WONG LEE YUK PING AGNES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 131
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/2017

The deputy judge erred in concluding the plaintiff plainly knew the primary factual case; because defendants had peculiar control and knowledge of the company records and transactions, the plaintiff had reasonable grounds to plead inconsistent alternatives under Order 18 rule 12A RHC. The appeal is allowed, the strike-out order set aside, and leave granted to re-amend the Statement of Claim.
17 Mar 2010

CORNEL ANTONIO JR. BELANDRES v. COMPASS TECHNOLOGY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CORNEL ANTONIO JR. BELANDRES v. COMPASS TECHNOLOGY CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV216/2009

The Amended Statements of Claim failed to plead essential elements of an unlawful‑means conspiracy (notably the requisite intention to injure and causal loss) and were inconsistent with the plaintiffs' own evidence; they were demurrable and there was no realistic prospect of amendment, therefore they must be struck out and the actions dismissed.