Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out (order 18 r19)

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2018

LUCY MICHAELS v. CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2023
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI902/2016

The court struck out the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the summary judgment application because the plaintiff failed to produce the medical report required for a personal injury action, lacked any evidential basis to prove gas leakage or causation linking alleged symptoms to carbon monoxide from the stove, and failed to credibly establish a later date of knowledge to avoid the three-year limitation; accordingly the claim was hopeless and disapplication of the limitation period under s30 was not warranted.
27 Jan 2017

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI899/2016

The court struck out the claim against the 2nd defendant because it is not a separate legal entity; the statement of claim against the 1st defendant as pleaded lacks sufficient particulars (identities, dates, particulars of duty and pleaded damages/medical evidence) and would be struck out unless the plaintiff files a proposed amended statement of claim and statement of damages within 28 days; summary judgment application dismissed because disputed facts and triable issues preclude summary determination.
27 Apr 2015

覃美金 v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

覃美金 v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA510/2013

The appeal is dismissed because although a conspiracy claim is not necessarily barred by res judicata, the Amended Statement of Claim failed to plead the necessary particulars and overt acts tying all alleged conspirators (breach of Order 18 r12), was scandalous/frivolous/abuse of process (Order 18 r19) and, further, the cause of action was a hybrid/chose in action vested in the trustees in bankruptcy so the plaintiff lacked locus standi; the Master's strike‑out was therefore correctly granted and is upheld with indemnity costs.
22 Jul 2003

SIEGFRIED ADALBERT UNRUH v. HANS-JOERG SEEBERGER AND ANOTHER

Citation

SIEGFRIED ADALBERT UNRUH v. HANS-JOERG SEEBERGER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6641/2000

Clause 2 of the Deed, read in its factual matrix with the Agreement, could reasonably be construed as creating an arguable contractual obligation by the 2nd defendant to pay the special bonus subject to the Agreement's conditions and set-off; the claim against the 2nd defendant was not a hopeless case and deficiencies in pleadings were curable by amendment; because the court could not definitively construe Clause 2 in favour of the 2nd defendant, both the striking out application and the Order 14A determination failed.
4 Jul 2001

SHAON LAL HIRANAND AND OTHERS v. DR. HARI NAROOMAL HARILELA AND OTHERS

Citation

SHAON LAL HIRANAND AND OTHERS v. DR. HARI NAROOMAL HARILELA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP15/2000

The court held the plaintiffs lacked locus independent of the alleged 1988 Will, the 1988 document was not genuine and in any event failed requisite formalities so it was invalid as a will and incapable of creating a trust binding on the defendants; the action was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and therefore was struck out and dismissed, the stay under the Legal Aid Ordinance was lifted as an exceptional case, and indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

Hong Kong Case Law

LUCY MICHAELS v. CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD AND OTHERS

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

覃美金 v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

SIEGFRIED ADALBERT UNRUH v. HANS-JOERG SEEBERGER AND ANOTHER

SHAON LAL HIRANAND AND OTHERS v. DR. HARI NAROOMAL HARILELA AND OTHERS