Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out for non‑compliance

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2025

CHAN WAI LUNG v. LEE SHU YEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 952
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA736/2022

Given the Defendants' deliberate and persistent non‑compliance with the Undertaking and the Court's Orders, their concealment of account closures and release of funds, and their failure to engage or justify non‑compliance, the Court will make an unless order requiring compliance within 14 days failing which the Defendants will be debarred from defending and judgment will be entered; costs are awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis with a certificate for counsel, summarily assessed and payable forthwith.
13 Dec 2021

趙宜樑對趙宜洪

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3705
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2484/2017

The application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's delay of about two and a half years was inordinate, he provided no adequate or evidenced explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit to outweigh the delay, and the respondent would be prejudiced; additionally the plaintiffs were found to be usually resident outside Hong Kong and the security for costs order and consequential strike‑out for non‑compliance were a lawful, appropriate and proportionate exercise of the court's discretion, and therefore the orders of the Master/Regist…
10 Mar 2016

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1412/2013

The court found an arguable case for discharge based on alleged material non‑disclosure but concluded that on balance of convenience the risk of further dissipation and prima facie breaches of the Mareva injunctions outweighed the defendants' speculative prejudice; accordingly the inherent jurisdiction to suspend was refused and the ex‑parte Receivership Order was continued pending full determination, with extended disclosure deadlines and costs ordered against defendants.
23 Feb 2010

CHAN HON CHOI AND ANOTHER v. CHENG SO MEI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN HON CHOI AND ANOTHER v. CHENG SO MEI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1443/2009

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the unless order by the deadline, the late affirmation was inadequate and added no new evidence or authority, there were no new factors justifying a different exercise of discretion from the Master and Order 2 rule 4 requires timely application for relief from the sanction.
29 Jan 2010

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP

Citation

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV184/2009

The Court of Appeal determined Carpenter II, when read with the materials referenced, sufficiently addressed the Court of Appeal's direction by providing expert opinion that the procedure fell below the applicable standard of care and could have caused tinnitus; Deputy Judge Carlson erred in striking out the action for non-compliance and in staying the action for abusive conduct as a first resort. However the judge was entitled to impose RAO and RPO given the plaintiff's pattern of unwarranted applications and offensive filings; procedural directions were given for amendment and for a supplem…
17 Oct 2008

JOHN JUDE MONTEIRO AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BLOCK NOS. 41, 42, 43 & 44, baguio villa AND OTHERS

Citation

JOHN JUDE MONTEIRO AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BLOCK NOS. 41, 42, 43 & 44, baguio villa AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA362/2007

Applying the established test from In re Jokai/PT Bank Pembangunan, the court concluded the defendants' non-compliance was not intentional or contumelious but caused by extraneous circumstances (typhoon and practical difficulties in obtaining the signature and filing), and therefore the strike out should be set aside and the defendants' defence reinstated; the court exercised discretion to allow relief and awarded costs on the appeal to the plaintiffs with a gross sum assessment of $96,850.
12 Feb 2004

JOHN SIMPSON WARHAM v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

JOHN SIMPSON WARHAM v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV349/2003

The Court affirmed the Deputy Judge's exercise of discretion: the defendants' spreadsheets and affidavits provided sufficient particulars under the Sakhrani criteria so that plaintiffs knew the case to meet; omissions were not wilful and identifying individual crew control officers was unnecessary and not reasonably feasible where termination decisions were made by committee; vague allegations of attitude (unhelpful/uncooperative) are matters for evidence at trial rather than detailed particulars now; accordingly strike out was not justified and the refusal to strike out was upheld.
14 May 1999

AQUA-LEISURE INDUSTRIES INC. AND ANOTHER v. AQUA SPLASH LTD.

Citation

AQUA-LEISURE INDUSTRIES INC. AND ANOTHER v. AQUA SPLASH LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA18928/1998

Where a party failed to comply with an order under Ord.25 r.6 to state whether it would defend and how it proposed to be represented shortly before a fixed trial, the court properly exercised its discretion under Ord.25 r.6(3)(b) to strike out the Defence to prevent prejudice and unnecessary expense to the plaintiff and to enable the trial to proceed efficiently; failure to participate justified debarment in the circumstances.
15 Mar 1996

PAK LIK CO (A FIRM) v. SUNG FOO KEE LTD

Citation

PAK LIK CO (A FIRM) v. SUNG FOO KEE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9862/1991

Defendant's Amended Defence and Counterclaim was struck out because it failed to comply with court orders to provide particularised particulars of alleged mistakes and overpayments; its global financial analysis was speculative and an abuse of process, insufficient to raise a bona fide defence to claims founded on thousands of contemporaneous, signed DRS; accordingly judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for the sum claimed with interest and costs and extensive discovery sought by Defendant was refused.
24 Jan 1996

GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V. v. KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.

Citation

GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V. v. KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA250/1991

The court ordered Galco to make and file the specified list of documents and make them available for inspection; granted leave to file the hearsay notice out of time but awarded costs to Kader (including a counsel certificate) because Galco was at fault in the late filing; dismissed Galco's summons to produce the laboratory reports because Kader had validly asserted legal professional privilege on the dominant purpose basis and awarded Kader costs (including a counsel certificate); the strike-out application was adjourned.