Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out affidavits

Legal area

Court

6 Jan 2017

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1574/2016

Li's draft affirmation was non‑compliant with Order 41 rule 5(1) (largely hearsay, not within deponent's knowledge), irrelevant to the specific tasks of a contempt inquiry, and was filed in breach of an unless order without any application for relief under Order 2 rule 5; Yao's report was filed in breach of the unless order, was not independent, presented factual matter inappropriate for an expert and did not address the court's task in contempt proceedings (construction of orders, compliance and state of mind); accordingly both documents were struck out and expunged and costs were awarded to…
6 May 2015

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1517/2011

The ex parte leave stage for committal is a filtering exercise under Order 52; Order 41 r5(2) and rules on affidavit admissibility do not apply in the same way at that stage to affirmations verifying the statement; the contested material was not material to the filtering test and the plaintiff's grounds had no reasonable prospect of success, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
21 Jan 2015

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1517/2011

At the ex parte leave stage under Order 52 rule 2 the court performs a prima facie filtering exercise and is not to decide admissibility or resolve credibility; Cheng\'s solicitor\'s affirmation was justified given the 1st Defendant\'s incapacity to attend and the solicitor\'s interviews; the Statement disclosed a reasonable cause of action on the pleaded facts; the two letters did not amount to material non-disclosure that would have prevented the court granting ex parte leave, so the ex parte leave was correctly granted and should not be set aside.
19 Dec 2013

RE LEADKEEN INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

RE LEADKEEN INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW472/2005

The court exercised discretion to refuse striking out the identified offending paragraphs because the offending material was identifiable and could be excluded from the judge's consideration, the strike‑out would produce no substantive benefit and procedural proportionality counselled against it; however, leave to cross‑examine Xie was granted because the Rule 95 appeal is a de novo hearing, the interests of justice required testing Xie's credibility and the Liquidators showed sufficient grounds to justify cross‑examination.
19 Dec 2013

RE MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW470/2005

The court found some paragraphs of Xie‑2nd contained argumentative or non‑factual material contrary to Order 41 rules but declined to strike them out because offending material was identifiable, the affidavit record was closed, and the appeal is a de novo hearing where the judge can exclude irrelevant material from his mind; separately, in the interests of justice and because the liquidators challenged credibility and sought to go behind Mainland judgments given new evidence of fraud, leave to cross‑examine Mr Xie was granted with time limited to three hours and timetable adjustments ordered.
11 Jul 2005

CHAN WOON FUI v. CHAN WING SUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN WOON FUI v. CHAN WING SUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW350/2004

The court applied RHC Order 41 r6 and established principles: passages that were irrelevant to the petition or scandalous (abusive, unparticularised allegations of wrongdoing) must be struck out; background allegations unconnected to the petition are irrelevant and removed; passages that directly rebut specific allegations or are factual and relevant were retained; the affidavit as a whole was not removed. Costs awarded to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents on party and party basis, taxed if not agreed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER

RE LEADKEEN INDUSTRIAL LTD

RE MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD

CHAN WOON FUI v. CHAN WING SUEN AND OTHERS