Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out (order 18 rule 19)

Legal area

Court

25 Apr 2016

ALL CHEER INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CITY TARGET LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ALL CHEER INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CITY TARGET LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5308/2015

The court dismissed the action under Order 12 rule 8A because the plaintiff failed to serve the writ within the 14-day period after proper notice; the separate strike-out application became unnecessary once dismissal under Order 12 rule 8A was granted; the 1st defendant was entitled to costs, which the court assessed and awarded accordingly.
3 Apr 2007

NG CHEUK KWAN AND ANOTHER v. LONG GREEN LTD

Citation

NG CHEUK KWAN AND ANOTHER v. LONG GREEN LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5359/2005

Summary determination was inappropriate because, though many of the defendant's allegations appeared weak or unarguable on the papers, there remained a realistic possibility that the estate agent had made actionable representations and that factual issues requiring trial existed; accordingly the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend and the counterclaim was not struck out, with costs allocated by Order Nisi.
3 Jan 2007

WING LUNG INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. VICTOR INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CO LTD

Citation

WING LUNG INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. VICTOR INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4726/2003

The 2nd Plaintiff’s claim was struck out because as an agent of a disclosed principal it had no locus standi to sue for premiums due to the 1st Plaintiff; summary judgment for the 1st Plaintiff was affirmed because the undisputed contemporaneous evidence (registration, receipts, deposit slips, instructions) established the Defendant acted as the 1st Plaintiff’s agent and there was no believable triable issue; the alleged illegality of non-registration did not render the insurance contracts unenforceable; alleged torts by debt collectors do not impeach the 1st Plaintiff’s entitlement and must…
18 Oct 2006

KENSLAND REALTY LTD (in compulsory liquidation) v. TAI TANG AND CHONG

Citation

KENSLAND REALTY LTD (in compulsory liquidation) v. TAI TANG AND CHONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV44/2006

The Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action because the cause of action accrued on 2 September 1997 when the plaintiff acted on the defendant's advice and thereby incurred liability; the plaintiff was on notice or had sufficient knowledge to start inquiries at that time so s31 did not extend the limitation period, and s31(6) prevents reliance on later knowledge that the acts amounted to negligence as a matter of law.
23 Oct 1992

CHEUK TZE KWOK v. LEUNG YIN KING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUK TZE KWOK v. LEUNG YIN KING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV67/1992

The appellant alleged a different oral contract for the sale of land rather than an independent collateral undertaking not to enforce a clause; such an allegation amounts to an oral contract for the sale of land and is barred by s.3 Cap.219 and the parol evidence rule; the pleaded claim does not rely on the established collateral contract exception and therefore discloses no reasonable cause of action and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Jan 1988

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE (SOUTH EAST ASIA) LTD v. CALIFORNIA ENTERTAINMENTS LTD

Citation

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE (SOUTH EAST ASIA) LTD v. CALIFORNIA ENTERTAINMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8093/1987

Where the plaintiff is not the maker of the recordings and the record labels name other makers, a bare notarial affirmation of ownership without documentary particulars or exhibited assignments is insufficient on an Order 14 application to displace rebuttable statutory presumptions and to negate a triable issue; consequently summary judgment was refused and the defendant given unconditional leave to defend; the Order 18 strike‑out was misconceived and dismissed.
11 Feb 1980

NUMATIC ENGINEERING LTD v. PETER XING HIU TAN

Citation

NUMATIC ENGINEERING LTD v. PETER XING HIU TAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3779/1979

The appeal is dismissed and the Statement of Claim is struck out because the plaintiff, having pursued the identical cause of action against the company and obtained judgment, cannot relitigate the same claim against the respondent in circumstances that amount to an abuse of process; the subsequent action is frivolous and vexatious and the proper course was joinder or earlier action against the respondent rather than re‑litigation.

Hong Kong Case Law

ALL CHEER INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CITY TARGET LTD AND ANOTHER

NG CHEUK KWAN AND ANOTHER v. LONG GREEN LTD

WING LUNG INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. VICTOR INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CO LTD

KENSLAND REALTY LTD (in compulsory liquidation) v. TAI TANG AND CHONG

CHEUK TZE KWOK v. LEUNG YIN KING AND ANOTHER

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE (SOUTH EAST ASIA) LTD v. CALIFORNIA ENTERTAINMENTS LTD

NUMATIC ENGINEERING LTD v. PETER XING HIU TAN