Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Strike‑out (order 18 r19)

  • 9 Jun 2025

    梁中平 對 杜蓓蕾及另二人

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2262
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1142/2024

    The court struck out the originating pleadings in all three HCMP matters because each pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, were malicious, frivolous, vexatious and amounted to an abuse of court process; claims against the judicial officer were impermissible as barred by Basic Law Article 85; the court therefore granted strike-out relief, made a temporary restriction order (vexatious litigant order) for two years with specified procedural conditions and made a provisional costs order on an indemnity basis against the plaintiff, with timelines for applications to vary or op…

    • Strike-out (order 18 r19)
    • Vexatious litigant/restriction on proceedings
    • Abuse of process
    • Recusal/avoidance
    • Basic law article 85 judicial immunity

  • 29 Oct 2021

    TSUI YUEN (formerly known as HO WAI HUNG) v. HO TSE WAI, PHILIP LI & PARTNERS (A FIRM) (formerly known as HO, TSE & WAI & PARTNERS)

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1613
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV57/2020

    The Court of Appeal held the judge erred in law in concluding the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because (a) on the strike-out application the plaintiff must be assumed, for present purposes, to have been mentally incapacitated at the time of settlement and there was a prima facie arguable causal link between the defendant's failure to seek court protection under Order 80 and the plaintiff's losses (abnormal disbursements and spousal exploitation), and (b) the judge failed to properly take into account the particulars in the 1st FBP and wrongly treated the 2nd FBP as su…

    • Strike-out (order 18 r19)
    • Extension of time to appeal
    • Order 80 (protection of persons under disability) r11 and r12
    • Causation and remoteness
    • Particulars of special damages
    • Leave to appeal

  • 30 Jul 2021

    范敏怡小姐 對 肯尼狄律師行(胡百豪大律師)

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2215
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP537/2021

    The originating process and accompanying affidavit failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action; the allegations were unsupported, rambling and largely identical to matters already litigated and struck out in prior proceedings, rendering the new claim frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; accordingly the court struck out and revoked the originating process and ordered provisional costs to the defendant.

    • Strike-out (order 18 r19)
    • No reasonable cause of action
    • Frivolous and vexatious proceedings
    • Abuse of court process
    • Interim costs order

  • 15 Jul 2019

    李靜 對 張少慧

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 1729
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA767/2018

    The statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for defamation because it did not identify the allegedly defamatory words or their meanings and did not show publication by the defendant to third parties; two of the three impugned documents were not authored by the defendant; the claim about superior's 'approval' misreads a certified-copy endorsement and is not a cause of action; the pleading amounted to a collateral attack on a dismissed judicial review and was therefore frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; accordingly the defendant's strike-out application was…

    • Strike-out (order 18 r19)
    • Publication element of defamation
    • Abuse of process
    • Collateral attack on prior judgment
    • Identity registration disputes

  • 17 Feb 2015

    SINA HONG KONG LTD v. PIXEL MEDIA HK LTD

    Citation
    SINA HONG KONG LTD v. PIXEL MEDIA HK LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1400/2013

    The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the defendant had sufficiently pleaded its case and adduced the factual matrix in response to the plaintiff's affirmation; the plaintiff's construction would have failed for multiple reasons even without the factual matrix; the presence of triable factual issues meant the plaintiff should not have used Order 14A/summary procedures and therefore must bear the costs; accordingly the costs order nisi was made absolute.

    • Order 14a construction
    • Summary judgment
    • Strike-out (order 18 r19)
    • Costs in the cause
    • Factual matrix
    • Pleadings

  • 26 Oct 2007

    ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP840/2007

    The court applied the requirement that complained conduct must be conduct in the affairs of the subject company and found it plain and obvious that the petitions relating to four dormant 'shelf' companies could not in substance plead conduct of those companies' affairs; those petitions were struck out. By contrast, the petitions concerning active property‑holding companies, Sparkling Wine (IP holder), Step Further and Insomnia Singapore raised interactions and financial interdependence sufficient that it was not plain and obvious they would fail; those petitions survived. Leave to amend was g…

    • Unfair prejudice petitions (s168a)
    • Strike‑out (order 18 r19)
    • Consolidation of proceedings
    • Amendment of pleadings
    • Directors fiduciary duties
    • Misappropriation