Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out for no cause of action

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2017

田路對賴幗敏及另一人

Citation

田路對賴幗敏及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA33/2017

The court refused leave to appeal because the claimant lacked legal standing as she was not the aggrieved person and the pleaded facts did not disclose any cause of action within the Small Claims Tribunal's jurisdiction (contract, quasi‑contract or tort); previous unsuccessful attempts demonstrated the proper claimant would be the minor or a next friend in a competent court, so there was no reasonable prospect of success and no legal error to justify leave.
31 Oct 2008

HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA

Citation

HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1980/2006

The application for stay was dismissed because the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action (no arguable misfeasance or negligence), the proposed grounds of appeal lacked real prospects of success, the plaintiff delayed prosecuting the appeal (five months) and the court lacked power to vary costs orders or grant the claimed O.62 relief after becoming functus officio; impecuniosity did not justify a stay.
9 May 2008

SHENZHEN TIAN HE JIAN SANG ELECTRONIC HOLDINGS CO LTD v. HONG KONG JIAN SANG ELECTRONICS (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHENZHEN TIAN HE JIAN SANG ELECTRONIC HOLDINGS CO LTD v. HONG KONG JIAN SANG ELECTRONICS (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1587/2007

The Copy Transcript, being the record of the execution hearing in which the 2nd defendant (through counsel) made statements and handed up a list of equipment and agreed to cooperate with execution, constituted a written acknowledgement of liability to satisfy the Appeal/Review Judgments within the meaning of s.23/s.24 and was made to the plaintiff (or its agent) in the hearing, thereby bringing the cause of action within the limitation period; the Copy Explanation Letter did not amount to a signed acknowledgement and was not made to the plaintiff; the Remit Judgment was only a transfer of for…
13 Feb 2007

YICK MING KIT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

YICK MING KIT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP190/2007

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the court agreed with the Deputy High Court Judge that the plaintiff's claims against the SFC disclosed no actionable cause of action and the proposed grounds of appeal were irrelevant and incapable of overturning the strike out decision.
10 Mar 2003

YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Citation

YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA389/2001

Refused extension of time because the appeal was inordinate (about 17 months) and unexplained, utterly without merit on the central point that no cause of action lay against the defendant firm (liquidators were individuals), and the defendant would be prejudiced; accordingly appeal dismissed as out of time, stay of costs refused and defendant awarded gross costs of HKD 10,800; summons for prohibitory order dismissed with no order as to costs.
10 Dec 2001

Full Rich Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Chan Wai Leung and Another

Citation

Full Rich Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Chan Wai Leung and Another
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC786/2001

Section 25 must be read as permitting the injured employee to pursue common law damages against a third party and permitting the employer to recover by joining the employee's action or by instituting a separate common law action; it does not authorize an employer to commence a separate employees compensation application against a third party to seek indemnity. Therefore the present application discloses no cause of action and must be struck out.
7 Jul 2000

HO KAM YUEN v. TUNG CHEE HWA

Citation

HO KAM YUEN v. TUNG CHEE HWA
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV16/2000

The courts below correctly concluded that the Statement of Claim disclosed no cause of action against the respondent; there is no reasonable prospect that the Court of Final Appeal would reach a different conclusion, therefore leave to appeal is refused and the application is dismissed.
3 Nov 1999

HO PO CHU v. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

HO PO CHU v. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV20/1999

Leave to appeal was refused because the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action and the proposed appeal lacked merit.
30 Aug 1990

HAROLD WILLIAH NEWNHAM FYNN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

HAROLD WILLIAH NEWNHAM FYNN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3562/1990

The dispute is private law (contract) and appropriately commenced by writ; the plaintiff and similarly situated officers may have enforceable contracts with the Government and have a real prospect of success on the claim that a unilateral change to their remuneration was not permitted by the contract; the strike out was therefore unjustified and the representative action is permissible under established criteria.
22 Jun 1987

PFIZER INCORPORATED AND ANOTHER v. JIWA INTERNATIONL (HK) CO

Citation

PFIZER INCORPORATED AND ANOTHER v. JIWA INTERNATIONL (HK) CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3299/1987

Pfizer holds sufficient proprietary and contractual interest (a grant coupled with responsibility to protect against infringement and entitlement to damages) to commence proceedings; joinder of Toyama as the legal proprietor was proper and required; the defendant's strike-out application failed because the claim disclosed a viable cause of action; interlocutory injunction should be granted.