Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out / abuse of process

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2023

徐瑞斌對香港入境事務處及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 981
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ87/2023

The court struck out and dismissed all four actions because the statements of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, were malicious/frivolous and amounted to an abuse of process; certain claims were barred by judicial immunity under Basic Law art.85; some defendants ("Hong Kong High Court") could not properly be sued as pleaded; and the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain matters properly pursued by judicial review in the High Court. The pleadings were incurably defective and amendment would be futile.
18 Jan 2019

T 對司法機構

Citation

[2019] HKCA 79
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP127/2018

The claim was rightly struck out because it in substance targets judicial acts protected by judicial immunity, discloses no reasonable cause of action and is frivolous/abusive; the asserted employer‑employee route under s48(1) DDO and reliance on O'Brien do not negate judicial immunity; consequently there is no real prospect of success and permission to appeal is refused under s63A(2) Cap.336.
12 Jan 2017

陳銳珍對市區重建局

Citation

陳銳珍對市區重建局
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP107/2016

The originating summons was struck out because the plaintiff's factual narrative contradicted undisputed documentary history and prior judgments; the compensation and possession issues had been litigated or abandoned and the present claim disclosed no reasonable cause and constituted an abuse of process or vexatious litigation, warranting dismissal under Order 18 r19 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
30 Apr 2009

KEEN LLOYD ENERGY LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

KEEN LLOYD ENERGY LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA92/2008

Given the pleaded and assumed facts, HKMA's letter of 17 July 1998 and the Measures complained of fell within its statutory supervisory powers under the Banking Ordinance and were reasonable and responsible steps; the plaintiff failed to show HKMA acted without power or with subjective knowledge or recklessness sufficient for misfeasance in public office; the defendant's lawful statutory authority provided justification defeating the tort of procuring breach; limitation also barred the plaintiff's claims. Accordingly the Statement of Claim was properly struck out as frivolous, vexatious and a…
9 Nov 2007

RE KAM FAT INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

RE KAM FAT INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW104/2007

The petitions under section 168A raised arguable claims of unfairly prejudicial conduct (notably wrongful delay/failure to register and an asserted deliberate failure to effect voluntary winding up of Shu Fat) and thus should not be struck out; by contrast, winding-up relief was unnecessary for Tak Yue and Kam Fat because adequate remedies are available under section 168A and there is insufficient material to justify winding up those two companies; certain irrelevant or immaterial narrative paragraphs should be struck out and costs awarded against the petitioner for the strike-out application…
20 Aug 2003

JUNESTAR INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

JUNESTAR INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1036/2002

Section 186 does not prevent interlocutory applications against persons other than the company; allegations challenging a company's authority to sue cannot be pleaded as a defence (paragraph 12 struck out) and must be addressed by striking out the plaintiff's name or separate application; allegations about the employee Ann were irrelevant and speculative and were struck out; pleas premised on hypothetical ratification were not plainly unsustainable and therefore were not struck out; the counterclaim was duplicative of an existing action and the names of Junestar and LWD as defendants by count…
7 Jun 1999

LEE TING LUN TIMOTHY v. OCEAN PALANCE RESTAURANT AND NIGHTCLUB LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE TING LUN TIMOTHY v. OCEAN PALANCE RESTAURANT AND NIGHTCLUB LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW351/1999

On a strike-out application the court must assume the petitioner's factual allegations to be true; the petitioner had an arguable beneficial interest through entities (Surplus Gain) sufficient to qualify as a member for s.168A purposes and, in any event, as a contributory has locus to present a winding-up petition; the respondents failed to show a plain and obvious case for striking out or that the petition was an abuse of process, therefore the strike-out application must be dismissed and the alternative winding-up relief and provisional liquidator application must proceed.
2 Nov 1994

HBS MARKETING LTD. v. APPLIED ELECTRONICS (OEM) LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

HBS MARKETING LTD. v. APPLIED ELECTRONICS (OEM) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/1994

The Court of Appeal held that exclusion of the 26 May fax under the parol evidence rule was premature because rectification and extrinsic evidence were properly pleaded and the documents were not shown to be a complete record; it was not plain and obvious that the appointment was a contract of employment falling within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, so the strike‑out was wrong; accordingly the appeal was allowed, the strike‑out order set aside and leave to amend to add parties granted.