Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out (o.18 r.19)

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2025

CHEUNG WAI KIE EDWIN AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG WAI SUM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3547
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA20/2024

The defendants failed to show a plain and obvious case to strike out the Statement of Claim; the Registrar’s debarment was a case management sanction not governed by O.2 r.5, and the plaintiffs’ lack of current representation does not make the proceedings an incurable nullity because a representation order under O.15 r.15 could cure the procedural defect; limitation issues are not plain and obvious at interlocutory stage and require factual resolution.
21 Mar 2022

KOO MING KOWN v. REV. MR. MOK KONG TING (President of the Baptist Convention of Hong Kong) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 642
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2016

It was not plain and obvious that the pleaded duty of the 1st and 4th Defendants to ensure appointees were fit and proper (and to act so as to protect the Schools' reputation) was unsustainable; the strike out application was therefore dismissed except that Relief (a) against the 1st and 4th Defendants was struck out on the defendants' undertaking to abide by any declaration made against the 3rd Defendant, because any practical utility of pursuing Relief (a) against those defendants had been removed.
23 Jan 2020

WYSE INVESTMENT LTD v. FUNG TIN YAU

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 252
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1291/2018

All three sets of appeals dismissed because the Masters’ decisions to refuse strike out and to refuse summary judgment were correct: the pleaded counterclaims and defences disclosed triable issues, assumption of fiduciary duties is a legally recognisable cause, factual disputes (Consensus v Withdrawal/Wyse Agreements) cannot be resolved summarily, and a prima facie case of fraud on the minority exists for derivative claims; therefore leave to defend should stand and derivative actions should not be struck out.
27 Feb 2015

TOPPING CHANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CCIF CPA LTD

Citation

TOPPING CHANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CCIF CPA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1609/2012

On the pleaded facts and available material the amended statement of claim was not plainly and obviously unsustainable: factual issues (including causation, limitation, reflective loss, assignability and Mainland law on subsidiary remedies) required trial or further factual enquiry; consequently the defendant’s strike‑out applications under O.18 r.19 and O.20 r.4 failed. The preservation injunction should continue because there was legitimate concern about destruction of audit documents, the balance of convenience favoured preservation and damages were an inadequate substitute for the documen…
30 Apr 2010

MING LAI SIU FUN v. TSANG HUNG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

MING LAI SIU FUN v. TSANG HUNG KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2057/2009

The court refused the Plaintiff's application for default judgment, held the defendant's O.12 r.8 challenge was misplaced and that contested merits points must be raised under O.18 r.19 or at trial, dismissed the strike out application on the grounds that the complex legal questions (including availability of a double derivative action under PRC law and reflective loss issues) were arguable and unsuitable for summary striking out, continued the interim injunction, ordered consolidation/case management for determination of the preliminary issue and granted the defendant an extension to file a…
18 Nov 2008

ONWAY ENGINEERING LTD v. SHUN WING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

ONWAY ENGINEERING LTD v. SHUN WING CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA88/2008

Court found the plaintiff's cause of action was for a liquidated pecuniary amount (quantum ascertainable from unit rates) but the two confirmation documents did not constitute valid acknowledgments because, when read with underlying accounting records and the surrounding circumstances, they were manifestly and repeatedly prepared incorrectly (showing sums in the wrong box) and were sent when the plaintiff was disputing that the defendant owed it anything; therefore there was no valid s23(3) acknowledgment, the limitation period was not extended, the action was statute-barred and must be struc…
7 Mar 2006

KAO, LEE & YIP (a firm) v. LAU WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAO, LEE & YIP (a firm) v. LAU WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1854/2005

The court held that 'by agreeing to pay' in s7 Cap.57 does not require mutual consent; a unilateral tender indicating willingness to pay suffices to effect termination by payment in lieu, therefore the defendants' notice of 19 August 2005 together with tenders of payment rendered the employment terminated on 19 September 2005 and claims dependent on an invalid notice fail; further, the dispute should have been commenced in the Labour Tribunal and the plaintiff's proposed amendments were vexatious and refused.
25 Jun 2003

RE HI-TECH PRECISION PRODUCTS LTD

Citation

RE HI-TECH PRECISION PRODUCTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW920/2002

The court found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case and that the Company did not adduce sufficiently precise evidence of a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds until 3 January 2003; therefore the petition was not an abuse of process when presented. The court exercised its discretion on costs: no order as to costs up to 3 January 2003; the Company was ordered to pay the petitioner’s costs incurred after 27 January 2003 subject to specified exceptions, taking into account the petitioner’s Calderbank offer and the parties’ conduct.
10 Sept 2002

MALAYA BANKING BERHAD v. CHINA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation

MALAYA BANKING BERHAD v. CHINA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT48/1999

Order 14A declined because the question whether clause 24 limits damages to additional completion costs is not a pure question of law and requires factual findings (notably whether the project was abandoned) which are absent on the material before the court; the strike out application failed because a claim for wasted expenditure is not inherently bad in law and the pleaded case sufficiently alleges breach, termination and causation which are matters for trial; the joinder/stay was refused because Maybank validly represents the syndicate, no good reason existed to exercise the court's discret…
30 Nov 1994

LI NGAN SHUI, BRUMEN v. A.R. HEARDER

Citation

LI NGAN SHUI, BRUMEN v. A.R. HEARDER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/1994

On proper construction of the Bankruptcy Ordinance a trustee in bankruptcy does not have a private common law action for breach of statutory duty; claims must proceed under s.83 (and s.73 bars ordinary actions for dividends). Further, the statements circulated by the Official Receiver/trustee in calling a creditors' meeting pursuant to a court order were made as an officer of the court and attract absolute privilege; therefore the defamation claim had no real prospect. The statement of claim was properly struck out and the appeal dismissed.