Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike‑out application

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2026

FOREVER CONCORD LTD AND OTHERS v. LAU KWONG & FUNG (A Firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1543
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA845/2024

On the pleaded facts and particulars (contracts, tender documents, correspondence and specified payments), the amended claims were not plain and obvious nor an abuse of process; claims for dishonest assistance, unlawful means conspiracy, breach as stakeholder/breach of trust and lack of authority were arguable and amendment was permitted; the strike-out application failed.
9 Jun 2025

梁中平對易庭暉陳偉健律師事務所及另二人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1536/2024

The court struck out the originating processes in HCMP 1085/2024, 1098/2024, 1254/2024 and 1536/2024 because the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, were malicious, frivolous and an abuse of court process amounting to vexatious litigation, and the claims asserted against judicial officers were barred by judicial immunity under Basic Law Article 85; accordingly strike‑out relief and an interim costs order were made.
2 May 2025

CATHAY INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD (Formerly known as “LINFA INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD”) v. TAISHIN INTERNATIONAL BANK CO., LTD., HONG KONG BRANCH (Incorporated in Taiwan with limited liability)

Citation

[2025] HKDC 701
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4274/2024

On the evidence before the court the defendant had reasonable grounds, based on multiple law-enforcement instruments and suspicious transaction reports including a JFIU 'no consent' notice, to freeze the claimant's accounts and to refrain from disclosure; the claimant's pleaded case lacked reasonable prospects of success and was properly characterised as frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process. The claim is struck out and costs awarded to defendant. Alternatively, had the claim survived, security for costs of HK$400,000 would have been justified given the claimant's foreign domicile and l…
19 Dec 2024

FAMEWAY FINANCE LTD v. JOY RICH DEVELOPMENT LTD (In liquidation)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA510/2012

Costs follow the event; the Chen Sisters (not Joy Rich) are entitled to receive the costs they incurred resisting the applications; Fameway must pay the Chen Sisters the costs of the Order 13 application incurred after 17 February 2023 and the costs of Fameway's strike‑out application; Lau must pay the Chen Sisters the costs of Lau's application; summary assessment fixed HK$500,000 for the Order 13 and Fameway applications and HK$200,000 for Lau's application.
20 Sept 2023

PAMELA ALDRED AND OTHERS v. CASTLE FIDUCIARY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA643/2022

The Trustee failed to establish any proper basis to vary the Costs Order Nisi: the costs ordered related to the Trustee's insistence on pressing for a summary determination of the striking-out summons at that interlocutory stage, not the substantive merits, and the Plaintiffs did not consent to substantive disposal; accordingly the Costs Order Nisi is made absolute and the Trustee must pay the costs of the Summons to the Plaintiffs to be summarily assessed.
19 Apr 2023

FUNG YIM v. CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 957
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA944/2021

The court found contemporaneous documentary and recorded evidence materially contradicted the plaintiff's pleaded case of no knowledge and no authorization, rendering the defence largely incredible; however unexplained delay by the defendant in enforcing margin requirements and absence of certain witness explanation prevented outright summary judgment or striking out. Accordingly the court granted conditional leave to defend on stringent terms (payment into court of HK$15,000,000 within 30 days) failing which defendant may enter judgment and strike out the claim.
28 Feb 2023

TAM YUK CHING AND OTHERS v. HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1511/2020

The Nisi Order was not varied because considering the results before the Master and on appeal neither party was wholly successful; the Nisi Order appropriately reflected the overall distribution of success and should therefore remain absolute; P1 must bear the costs of the variation application, to be taxed if not agreed, with summary on-paper taxation and directed timelines.
21 Sept 2022

WONG TSZ HANG by her uncle and next friend CHU MAN KONG v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1013
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2470/2019

The court applied the usual principle that costs of and occasioned by an amendment are payable 'in any event' because future consequential costs cannot reliably be ascertained, and found no exceptional feature to justify a 'forthwith' order; the re-amendments were extensive so a limited counsel certificate was reasonable for the consideration of the Re-Amendment Summons, but not for consequential factual work; regarding the withdrawn Strike-out Summons the court could not determine the likely outcome (given intervening expert evidence and re-amendments) and therefore ordered costs in the caus…
11 Aug 2022

TRINITY CONCEPT LTD (In liquidation) v. WONG KUNG SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1180
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP221/2022

The Court held the beneficiaries (the company in liquidation) are entitled as of right to a first-stage account and that, on the pleaded facts and given the absence of documentary evidence (partly attributed to the defendants’ conduct), it was premature to strike out claims for further relief as time-barred under s.20(2); limitation issues could be reserved until after the account is taken, so the strike-out and Order 14A applications were properly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
30 Nov 2021

楊鑒新對社會福利署長

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1463
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6785/2020

The statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and amounted to a collateral attack on prior determinations of the Guardianship Board and the High Court, constituting abuse of process; the appellant's appeal was out of time and no special reasons or permission justified it; the attempted introduction of new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall requirements; accordingly the out‑of‑time appeal was refused and dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent on an indemnity basis with summary assessment directions.