Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike-out applications

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2024

JOY RICH DEVELOPMENT LTD (In liquidation) v. FAMEWAY FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1497/2022

Costs were ordered to follow the event: the receiving party for Lau’s application was varied to the Chen Sisters; Fameway was ordered to pay the Chen Sisters the costs of Fameway’s application; Fameway was ordered to pay the Chen Sisters the costs of the Order 13 application incurred after 17 February 2023; and the costs were summarily assessed at HK$500,000 for the Order 13 and Fameway applications combined and HK$200,000 for Lau’s application, with certificates for two counsel where stated.
23 May 2022

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA404/2018

The plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or that the court erred in principle or acted plainly wrongly; the core dispute about exclusion of the Recording and Transcript was resolved for the 1st defendant, making the plaintiff not the effective winner and his conduct unreasonable; the 2nd defendant's refusal to provide the Confirmation was justified and was provided only after review; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were ordered against the plaintiff on a party and party basis with a certificate for two counsel for the 1st defendant, indemnity costs were…
29 Dec 2021

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3853
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA404/2018

The court granted the 1st defendant's Withdrawal Summons, ordered the plaintiff to withdraw his Exclusion and Amendment Summons, and held that the plaintiff was not the effective winner; the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct in refusing reasonable proposals and involving the 2nd defendant unjustifiably caused wasted costs and delay, therefore the plaintiff must pay the costs of the summonses to the 1st and 2nd defendants (with a certificate for two counsel for the 1st defendant).
23 Nov 2021

WAH SUN INVESTMENTS LTD v. WEALTHY BASE PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3595
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3046/2016

The strike-out application was dismissed because the issues raised are primarily factual and not appropriate for resolution on strike-out; the documentary record did not establish that the Plaintiff's claims were bound to fail; contested matters such as common intention and whether consideration was paid require full trial and the absence of villagers' testimony is not determinative.
31 Mar 2021

LIU HAO TSING EDUCATION FOUNDATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. LIU TIEH CHING BRANDON (also known as LAU TIT SHING)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA931/2019

The court held it was not a plain and obvious case to strike-out the petition on the ground that the Statement was enforceable to bar the petition; the enforceability raised non‑trivial legal and public policy issues and required fuller determination. However, the court struck out specific reliefs that were clearly unsustainable: the primary relief for distribution of assets in specie (paragraph 132 and Prayer 1) and the alternative winding-up averments (paragraphs 136–138 and Prayer 5) as obviously inappropriate on the pleaded facts, and struck out the petition as against the 3rd and 4th res…
23 Mar 2015

YUNG WOON KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG YUI KWAI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUNG WOON KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG YUI KWAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2153/2009

The court struck out the winding‑up petitions against the foreign companies (CY Macao and CY Mauritius) for failure to plead and establish the required jurisdictional connection under s327 and concluded there was no reasonable prospect of establishing sufficient connection; the court also struck out winding‑up prayers in the five Hong Kong petitions because, on the evidence, there was no realistic prospect of a winding‑up order where buy‑out was the appropriate remedy and respondents could be expected to raise funds and be held to account; the amendment summons to substitute buy‑out relief fo…
23 Mar 2015

YUNG YUI KWAI v. YUNG WOON KWAI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUNG YUI KWAI v. YUNG WOON KWAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW465/2012

The petitions to wind up CY Mauritius and CY Macao are struck out for failing to plead and substantiate the s327 criteria and for lacking sufficient connection with Hong Kong; the winding-up prayers in the five Hong Kong company petitions have no realistic prospect of success because the companies are solvent and a buy-out order is the appropriate and practicable remedy (respondents likely able to raise funds and petitioners not at real risk of an unenforceable judgment); the amendment to substitute buy-out relief for reinstatement is allowed but costs up to the date of the order are awarded…
17 Dec 2010

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI

Citation

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV52/2010

It is not plain and obvious from the pleadings that the reflective loss principle bars the plaintiff's claim against the trustee; the strike-out was therefore inappropriate and must be set aside so the disputed factual and legal issues (including limitation) can be explored at trial.
21 Dec 2007

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Citation

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP838/2007

The court declined to vary the order nisi and held that, on the basis that the strike-out applications were argued on the same legal grounds and that the respondents succeeded overall, a global order awarding the respondents half of the costs of the striking-out applications is appropriate; the petitioners' arguments about relative value of dormant companies did not alter the costs exercise.
21 Dec 2007

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON AND ANOTHER v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Citation

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON AND ANOTHER v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1208/2007

Because the strike-out applications were brought and argued on substantially the same legal basis across the consolidated petitions, and the respondents were overall the successful party on that common basis, the court properly made a global order depriving petitioners of half the costs; the relative commercial value of the companies does not alter the merits of the strike-out applications and the order nisi should not be varied.