Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out defence

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2025

廖漢輝對廣鼎有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1521
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3233/2023

Service to the address supplied by the defendants was effective; the second defendant failed to comply with repeated case management orders and his defence was properly struck out; inconsistent and implausible explanations undermined his claim of non-receipt; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to enter final judgment in default for the principal sum, contractual interest and costs, and the scheduled trial was vacated.
7 May 2025

TSANG YUEN WANG t/a Second Brother（二師兄） v. LEUNG WANG HONG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 747
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2772/2022

Adjournment was refused because the plaintiff's proposed letter did not satisfy the requirement that the court itself require information under Order 25 r9; there was insufficient evidence that the defendant had abandoned his defence; striking out is a draconian remedy inappropriate so close to a ready and short trial; therefore the PTR should not be adjourned and the trial should proceed as scheduled.
21 May 2024

SUN HSIEN LONG AND OTHERS v. WU WAI LEUNG DANNY

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA831/2018

The Official Receiver did not adopt the Defendant's defence so the Defendant had no interest to defend; the Re-re-amended Defence being struck out meant the pleaded facts were deemed admitted under Order 18 r 13(1), entitling the Plaintiffs to interlocutory judgment on liability and an assessment of damages at the admitted sum of HK$10,707,030 with pre-judgment interest at commercial rate plus 1% from 10 November 2015 until judgment and thereafter at the judgment rate until payment.
23 Jan 2020

SUN HUNG KAI CREDIT LTD v. WONG PO LING

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 211
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2282/2018

Appeal dismissed because defendant defaulted on the secured loan, produced no evidence of a reasonable prospect of repayment to justify suspending possession, and the court had no basis to discharge charging orders registered by third parties; costs awarded on an indemnity basis under the contractual provisions.
24 Jun 2019

WANGHAI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as CHANGHONG OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT LTD) v. LEUNG YU FUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1628
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1860/2015

The delay in seeking leave to appeal was substantial (approximately one year) and inexcusable given evidence the defendant knew of the order; the amended defence did not disclose any reasonable defence in light of the defendant's own admission of fraudulent misappropriation; accordingly leave to appeal out of time was refused and the summons dismissed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
22 May 2017

MILLAP LTD 及另一人對李艷玲

Citation

MILLAP LTD 及另一人對李艷玲
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5605/2015

The judge exercised discretion to dismiss the late appeal because the defendant failed to comply with the 'unless' order requiring a true residential/service address, provided addresses (P.O. Box and airport) were not bona fide or acceptable for service, the delay was unexplained and unsupported by evidence (including medical proof), and the appeal had no realistic prospect of success; costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
2 Oct 2015

YIU KA FUNG VINCENT t/a CONFIDENCE SERVICES CENTRE v. INFO VANTAGE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YIU KA FUNG VINCENT t/a CONFIDENCE SERVICES CENTRE v. INFO VANTAGE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2014

The Court held that the 2nd defendant could not properly contend it was not a transferee under the Ordinance because the set off of $430,000 in favour of the 2nd defendant created detriment and preference to other creditors; the application to set aside the Court's judgment prior to sealing was dismissed because no exceptional circumstances existed and re-argument was impermissible; the costs order nisi was made absolute with the 2nd defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the set-aside application on a party-and-party basis.
29 Nov 2013

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. GOOD MARK INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. GOOD MARK INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC1003/2013

The defence was struck out because it sought to impugn the validity or correctness of the tax assessments, which in recovery proceedings is barred by s.75(4) IRO; Article 24 of the China/Hong Kong Arrangement did not, on the pleadings, displace s.75(4) such that the defence could proceed, and the proposed stay pending judicial review was inappropriate; surcharges and the Certificate were valid and recoverable.
14 Dec 2012

YANG YEE MAN, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LAM LOK KIN, DECEASED v. LEUNG HING HUNG

Citation

YANG YEE MAN, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LAM LOK KIN, DECEASED v. LEUNG HING HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI443/2010

The defence was struck out and interlocutory judgment for damages entered because the defendant's vehicle caused the sign to fall, the defendant had been convicted of careless driving and had not challenged that conviction, and the defence that faulty car park design alone caused the accident was obviously unsustainable; partial fault by the defendant suffices given joint and several liability.
26 Jan 2012

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. GIANT ELECTRONICS LTD

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. GIANT ELECTRONICS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC3474/2011

The defence was struck out because it only sought to challenge the correctness of the tax assessment by claiming depreciation allowance; section 75(4) bars the court from entertaining such a plea in recovery proceedings, therefore the defence disclosed no reasonable defence and judgment was entered for the Commissioner.