Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out under order 18 r19

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2024

吳月坤對陳進光

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1632
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5929/2021

The court struck out the plaintiff's claims because (1) the personal injury claim was plainly time‑barred under Limitation Ordinance s27, the plaintiff provided no explanation for delay and extension under s30 was not justified and would be unfair to the defendant (deceased) and his estate; (2) the claim for loss of youth/time/feelings disclosed no legal cause of action; (3) the HK$800,000 alleged payment for agreeing to cohabit is unenforceable as contra bonos mores; and (4) additional monthly HK$20,000 claim was not pleaded—thus the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause and must…
27 Nov 2023

CHINA HEALTH GROUP LTD v. CHIU & PARTNERS (A firm)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2995
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA891/2022

The appeal was dismissed because the indorsement of claim and the statement of claim were properly struck out: the SOC pleadings advanced causes of action beyond the scope of the IOC contrary to O.18 r.15(2) (Purview Ground) and the identical pleadings filed in two actions constituted an impermissible multiplicity of proceedings (Duplicity Ground). Other grounds (quantum meruit, limitation, abuse of process) were not plain and obvious and therefore did not justify strike out.
8 Jun 2022

GLOBE GROUP LTD v. GLOBALMAX (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 620
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4256/2019

The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to pursue the oral guarantee and fraud/lifting the corporate veil claims except insofar as the pleadings attempted to treat the Loan Agreement or veil-lifting as creating a separate written guarantee or to assert enforceable security over the 2nd defendant’s property. The oral guarantee does not satisfy s.3 and s.5 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance and is therefore unenforceable as creating security over land; accordingly the registration of the writ against the property is vacated. Certain paragraphs claiming a written guarantee…
5 Dec 2017

NOWODZELSKI, STACEY ALAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NOWODZELSKI, STACEY ALAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA393/2017

The Master’s strike out was upheld because the plaintiff's claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or were an abuse of process: the Removal Order is an administratively authorised civil measure distinct from criminal punishment and did not breach Article 11(6); the prejudicial treatment and naturalization complaints were matters for JR and lacked an arguable basis (plaintiff was not stateless and had no proven right of abode); the libel claim failed because communications were made under statutory duty and qualified privilege applied with no pleaded or evidential malice; and a new…
13 Sept 2016

YEUNG, ABRAHAM v. SUN KING KAI

Citation

YEUNG, ABRAHAM v. SUN KING KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA413/2015

The court held the contents of the three meetings were not in the nature of without prejudice settlement negotiations and therefore were not privileged; there was no plain and obvious case to strike out the pleadings on that ground; accordingly the strike out application was dismissed while permitting specified amendments and making costs orders.
20 Jul 2016

藍旭鋒先生對香港政府及另一人

Citation

藍旭鋒先生對香港政府及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1156/2015

The pleadings against the Hong Kong Government disclosed no reasonable cause of action because, even if the alleged noise/disturbance existed, the Housing Department and Police were not legally responsible for other tenants' conduct and had taken investigatory steps; the statements were frivolous/vexatious and constituted an abuse of process (including duplicative proceedings and failure to provide necessary particulars or medical evidence to support the large damages claim). Accordingly the writs/statements against the Government were strike‑out and the claims dismissed; costs were awarded t…
18 Feb 2016

YUEN OI YEE LISA v.CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v.CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3305/2015

The Court refused leave because the Judge correctly found the action to be re‑litigation of earlier dismissed proceedings to which the applicant was privy and therefore barred; the RPO and strike‑out under Order 18 r19 were justified by the procedural history and conduct; none of the proposed grounds disclosed a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2); costs and procedural directions were properly ordered.
4 Nov 2015

YUNG TAI YIN v. CHAN YUEN TUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

YUNG TAI YIN v. CHAN YUEN TUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1225/2014

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead or adduce any material facts or particulars or documentary evidence to show that the 2nd defendant authorised or directed D1 and Chiau to commit the alleged torts; under the test for secondary liability a clear evidential foundation (direction by the company and inevitability of the tort) was required and was absent; new affidavit material was not admitted and adjournment was refused; therefore the claim against D2 was bound to fail and the master's strike‑out was upheld.
15 Jul 2013

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA347/2013

Plaintiff's applications for further particulars, discovery and production were dismissed because affidavits did not stand as pleadings, the requests were fishing for evidence and not necessary at the interlocutory stage, and the court exercised case management to refuse premature, duplicative or unnecessary orders; requests for injunctions, contempt findings, declaratory relief, summary judgment and freezing order were similarly dismissed as premature, unsupported or duplicative pending the substantive hearing of the defendant's strike-out summons; costs follow event and a costs order nisi w…
25 Nov 2010

YEUNG, KWONG TAT EDWARD v. CELESTIAL SECURITIES LTD

Citation

YEUNG, KWONG TAT EDWARD v. CELESTIAL SECURITIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1693/2010

The indorsements on the 21 writs disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the plaintiff failed to show cause at the hearing; therefore, exercising powers under Order 1B and Order 18 r19 the court struck out the indorsements, dismissed the 21 actions and ordered costs to the defendants to be assessed summarily.