Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Striking out for no reasonable cause of action

  • 21 Nov 2024

    HUANG CAIYUN v. LIN JINGJING

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3358
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1012/2024

    Prayer 1 is not plainly and obviously a proprietary claim because it can be read as a personal contractual claim quantified by reference to the JB Account and therefore discloses a reasonable cause of action; prayer 2 is plainly unsustainable because the unjust enrichment claim pleads enrichment of HK$10,500,000 with no pleaded connection to the JB Account, so prayer 2 discloses no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out; costs orders adjusted accordingly.

    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Proprietary reliefs
    • Costs
    • Appeal by way of rehearing

  • 2 May 2024

    北角中心大廈業主立案法團 v. 威邦物業管理服務有限公司

    Citation
    [2024] HKLdT 36
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDBM100/2023

    Wellpoint is not a member of the class of Plaza Owners, is not liable under the DMC to IO, and the Sub-DMC/Service Agreements do not confer an unfettered power or duty to be sued as representative for individual owners in respect of personal contractual liabilities; there is a real risk of conflict of interest and absence of authorisation and funding from owners; accordingly the ANOA discloses no reasonable cause of action against Wellpoint and must be struck out, the Representative Summons is dismissed and the action is dismissed.

    • Representative proceedings
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Management fees recovery
    • Trusteeship of collected funds
    • Privity of contract
    • Conflict of interest

  • 19 May 2022

    LUI CHO YIN v. 雷健邦 AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 420
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI1041/2018

    The plaintiff's statement of claim failed to plead the necessary averments to establish a duty of care owed by the 2nd defendant (no pleaded defect in the ladder, no pleaded knowledge or control by the 2nd defendant or assumption of responsibility), therefore the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under s63A DCO and leave to appeal was dismissed.

    • Duty of care
    • Independent contractor liability
    • Provision of equipment
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Leave to appeal
    • Res ipsa loquitur

  • 1 Aug 2019

    YUEN OI YEE LISA AND ANOTHER v. NGAI NGOK PANG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 1933
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2155/2018

    Claims were struck out because, even accepting plaintiffs' evidence, the acts complained of did not interfere with plaintiffs' use or enjoyment of land (UCH was not their land or place of occupation), therefore no reasonable cause of action in nuisance was disclosed and the claims were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; withdrawal resolved joinder as to D2.

    • Nuisance
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Wrong joinder
    • Summary assessment of costs
    • Frivolous and vexatious proceedings

  • 26 Oct 2018

    鄭燕芳 對 青山醫院

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 743
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV172/2016

    The court refused leave because the appellant's proposed grounds did not raise any reasonably arguable issue of great and general or public importance, repeated the failed arguments before the Master and the judge, and the strike out was justified; procedural non‑compliance and absence of arguable points warranted refusal of leave and an order for costs.

    • Leave to appeal to cfa
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Abuse of process
    • Procedural non-compliance
    • Costs assessment

  • 31 May 2017

    DR LAU YUE CHIU v. LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN

    Citation
    DR LAU YUE CHIU v. LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1176/2016

    Defendant was entitled to the grant de bonis non as personal representative of the 4th son under rule 19 of the NCPR because the Will/Codicil bequeathed the residuary estate to the three named sons absolutely and the DFA was a post-death family arrangement that did not make the plaintiff an ultimate residuary beneficiary; accordingly plaintiff's claim had no reasonable prospect and was struck out.

    • Administration (with will) de bonis non
    • Priority of grant of representation
    • Deed of family arrangement
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Construction of wills
    • Ancestral worship trust

  • 5 Apr 2017

    楊華偉 對 僑樂服務管理有限公司

    Citation
    楊華偉 對 僑樂服務管理有限公司
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4839/2016

    The statement of claim was struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action because the alleged conduct (threat to call police) is not an unlawful threat capable of grounding the tort of intimidation, the plaintiff failed to plead or prove any actual damage, and the second affidavit filed after the judgment was excluded; therefore the claim could not succeed and must be struck out.

    • Intimidation (tort)
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Abuse of process
    • Vicarious liability
    • Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
    • Costs

  • 21 Sept 2016

    YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1914/2015

    Leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed because the intended proceedings were a re-litigation of matters already dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; under ss63/63A of the District Court Ordinance the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

    • Restrictive proceedings order (rpo)
    • Leave to appeal
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Relitigation/res judicata
    • Personal data (privacy) ordinance s66

  • 14 Dec 2015

    莊裕安 對 破產管理署署長及另一人

    Citation
    莊裕安 對 破產管理署署長及另一人
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV115/2014

    The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant leave because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the appeal raised issues of broad public importance or any exceptional reason under s22(1)(b); the impugned decision involved applying settled legal principles to the facts and the claims lacked a reasonable cause of action, therefore leave was properly refused.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Public importance
    • Legal aid rights

  • 22 May 2015

    PATRIARCH PARTNERS MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC v. WONG SIU WA SAMMY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    PATRIARCH PARTNERS MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC v. WONG SIU WA SAMMY AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV248/2014

    The appeal was allowed because, although the ASOC as pleaded was defective on fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy (failing to particularize the factual linkage between the earlier agreements and the Settlement Agreement), the proposed RASOC cured those defects; striking out was therefore inappropriate and the proper course was to grant leave to apply to reamend and stay the action, while leaving the costs order below undisturbed and awarding the respondent costs of the appeal (certificate for two counsel).

    • Fraudulent misrepresentation
    • Conspiracy to injure
    • Striking out for no reasonable cause of action
    • Service out of jurisdiction
    • Leave to amend pleadings
    • Settlement agreement