Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike‑out

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2025

梁中平對張世文蔡敏律師事務所及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1085/2024

The court struck out the four originating processes because each failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, contained unsupported and scandalous allegations amounting to abuse of process and vexatious litigation, and because the claims against the two presiding officers were barred by Basic Law Article 85; accordingly the strike‑out applications succeed and an interim costs order was made with a procedure for submissions and assessment.
7 Apr 2025

LEE SHI YAN ESTHER v. APPLE ASIA LTD (sued as APPLE INC, HONG KONG BRANCH)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1426
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1616/2024

The Set‑Aside Summons is dismissed because the court had no power to re‑open the appeal after the dismissal order was sealed; alternatively, even if power existed, the applicant’s delay was substantial and unexplained, her reasons were unreasonable and inconsistent, and the underlying appeal is hopeless because the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action (including failure to plead a valid PDPO claim), therefore no extension of time to appeal is granted and the strike‑out is upheld.
27 Mar 2025

藍松對藍有文及另四人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 295
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2024

The applicant's notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was struck out and the application dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal raised any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal's prior decision; the appeal was therefore abusive and without reasonable prospect of success.
25 Feb 2025

梁偉珍對香港創毅控股有限公司/營運(香港創毅保安cpsc) 香港創毅物業服務顧問有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 778
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP391/2024

The claim was struck out because the venue at issue is part of private estate common parts governed by the Deed of Mutual Covenant which empowered the manager to require removal of the placard and exclude non-residents; the video evidence showed no unlawful eviction or intentional destructive interference and any contact with the placard was accidental and not trespass; the plaintiff therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the claims were frivolous and bound to fail; the holding company had no pleaded basis for liability as operator and its claim likewise disclosed no reasonable…
2 Aug 2024

XU QIANGLI AND ANOTHER v. ELABS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1230
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4489/2020

The court struck out the constructive trust claim because the pleadings failed to sufficiently allege defendant was a fraudulent recipient and failed to plead that identifiable property remained in defendant's hands to support a proprietary declaration; however, balancing justice and procedural objectives the court allowed a late amendment to plead unjust enrichment (mistake of fact/identity) and adjourned the trial, with costs directions to address prejudice caused by lateness and adjournment.
2 Aug 2024

Y 對 A

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1175
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO1/2024

The statements of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the claimant did not plead which statutory scope of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance applied and the pleaded facts did not objectively show conduct meeting the s2(5) definition of sexual harassment; several pleaded matters were irrelevant, scandalous or oppressive; accordingly both claims were struck out and dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
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.
9 Feb 2024

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. KHANDURI SANJAY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 245
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1068/2022

Leave to appeal refused because none of the grounds advanced disclosed a reasonable prospect of success: the Banking Ordinance was properly construed as regulatory with enforcement by HKMA and did not confer a private right of action; the Ladd v Marshall criteria apply and the purported fresh evidence would not have had important influence; no basis shown for judicial review in this forum; exclusion of the evidence did not breach Article 10; and the counterclaim remained unarguable so strike-out and costs were appropriate.
11 Dec 2023

唐弋蘇對新卫保安服务有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1705
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI4297/2022

The strike‑out was correct because the claimant's statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the insurer and the procedural objection about the timing of the affidavit failed because the rule relied upon did not require contemporaneous filing of an affidavit with the summons.
28 Nov 2023

COOMBER, PETER JOHN v. LAU YIN HA, EVA (EVA LAU) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1673
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3416/2022

The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the Leung Kwok Hung public interest litigation principle does not apply to these strike-out proceedings; even if it were relevant, it does not override the court's broad discretion which must consider merits and likelihood of private gain; the Plaintiff's claims lacked merit and he could not show no private interest, and he failed to follow correct procedural steps, therefore the costs order nisi for indemnity costs is upheld and additional indemnity costs for the variation application are awarded.