Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out of pleadings

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2026

徐學仲及另一人對符燕敏

Citation

[2026] HKDC 92
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4956/2014

The court allowed the 1‑day late application for leave to appeal, held the registrar's strike out order was incorrect because the defendant's contention that the alleged damage to the vertical soil stack affected only her unit meant her locus and right to sue was not plainly lacking, and therefore set aside the strike out order and permitted limited re‑amendment of pleadings to include specific factual paragraphs; fresh affidavits did not meet the Ladd v Marshall threshold and were struck out.
12 Jan 2026

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. NEW EDEX CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT26/2024

The contested strike‑out applications were dismissed because the matters complained of were fact‑sensitive and arguable on the pleaded case, limitation and abuse‑of‑process arguments depended on the construction and effect of alleged agreements, deficiencies of particulars should be remedied by requests rather than strike‑out, and the proposed amendments rendered strike‑out inappropriate; consequently the amendment was granted with directions and only one part of the strike‑out application was adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.
10 Oct 2024

LAU KWOK HUNG (AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAU WO alias LAU YICK WO, THE DECEASED) v. WH AH JEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2733
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1071/2022

The court held the theft averment in paragraph 24 was not plainly irrelevant or bound to fail because damages for trespass can encompass trespass to goods and conversion; particulars could be provided (police report exists) and evidential criticisms did not justify striking out at interlocutory stage. Consequently the Master’s orders striking out the theft allegation and refusing leave to include the police‑report allegation were set aside and leave to amend was granted to include the Proposed Amended Defence and Counterclaim in full, with directions for a draft order and costs assessment.
28 Feb 2024

LI CHI SUM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES

Citation

[2024] HKDC 273
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2017

The court struck out ACNOC paragraphs 11–17 because they are statute‑barred: the alleged events occurred outside the 24‑month DDO limit and outside the 3‑year LO personal injury limit; the pleaded acts are one‑off incidents not a continuing regime so DDO s82(5)(b) does not apply; the claimant did not file affirmation evidence to satisfy the court it is just and equitable to disapply the time bar under DDO s82(3) or LO s30, and therefore the pleaded matters must be struck out.
25 Jun 2021

TRENUS OCEANWAY LTD v. RICHLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1924
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW352/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the Petitioner failed to identify a clear mistake of law or fact in the judge’s strike-out decision; the complaint amounted to disagreement that the Petitioner had the better of the argument rather than a demonstration that the decision was plainly wrong, and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
17 Mar 2020

黃潔貞對和穎

Citation

[2020] HKDC 107
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5937/2018

The court found as a matter of fact that after expiry of the fixed terms the three defendants' tenancies became periodic monthly tenancies because rent was paid monthly; the termination notices were valid and the landlord did not intend to create new tenancies despite receipt of some rents after notice; defendants failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or triable issue and thus summary judgment was appropriate; mesne profits were awarded at the previous monthly rents from specified dates until vacation; one defendant's counterclaim was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of acti…
10 Oct 2019

鄭鐘強對溫宗輝先生及另二人

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1334
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5065/2018

The proposed amended statement of claim failed to plead fraud/dishonesty with the required specificity and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The pleaded facts, even taken as true, left non-fraudulent explanations equally or more likely; therefore amendment was futile and the statement of claim was struck out and the appeal dismissed.
8 May 2018

NG WOON KING v. CHENG KAM WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 491
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2235/2017

Paragraphs 12 and 13 were struck out because pleading the letters were both pre-action correspondence and absolutely privileged was self-contradictory and obviously unsustainable; paragraph 22 was struck out because legal professional privilege was misapplied to letters not sent to a legal adviser; paragraph 24 was struck out because reliance on statutory provisions treating pre-action letters as pleadings was unsustainable. The remaining pleaded defences did not meet the plain and obvious threshold for striking out.
12 Jul 2017

JAFOON PROPERTY FINANCE LTD v. KING PETER HICKSON SEETO SHEW also known as JIN ZHIHAO

Citation

JAFOON PROPERTY FINANCE LTD v. KING PETER HICKSON SEETO SHEW also known as JIN ZHIHAO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA648/2014

The court applied the governing civil procedure principle that amendments and additional documents should be permitted only to the extent they are material and directly relevant to issues in dispute (including defences under s27 MLO and witness credibility); immaterial or irrelevant passages may be struck out.
13 Mar 2017

KIUWIDE CO LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of the DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

KIUWIDE CO LTD v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of the DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP253/2015

The Master\'s order striking out the joinder of D2–D16 and the Government\'s counterclaim was rightly upheld: the court exercised its discretion under Order 15 r5(2) and concluded there was no procedural convenience in joining the additional defendants because the Government\'s case against them was contingent, unparticularised and premature, and joinder would unfairly prejudice and delay resolution of the plaintiff\'s ready claim over the Purple Area; the Government can pursue separate proceedings and protective writs; appeal dismissed.