Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out under order 18 r.19

Legal area

Court

11 May 2021

黃碩雄對侯百燊及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1300
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1915/2020

The appeal is dismissed because it was filed out of time without a satisfactory explanation and, on the merits, the originating pleading disclosed no reasonable cause, was frivolous and constituted an abuse of process (impermissibly seeking to relitigate issues already decided); the letters complained of were lawful demands to enforce cost orders and did not constitute intimidation; accordingly the striking‑out and dismissal orders were correctly made and are upheld.
13 Nov 2008

GOLDEN SANDS LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

GOLDEN SANDS LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV229/2008

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the appellants deliberately failed to move the appeals before this Court, such conduct amounted to an abuse of process, and the Deputy Judge's striking out of the claim as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process was justified.
21 Jun 2007

CHAN SHU KONG v. KWONG HING TRADING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN SHU KONG v. KWONG HING TRADING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1152/2006

The proposed detailed amendment repeating the partnership claim was, on its face, impermissible because partners are jointly (not severally) liable under s.11 Partnership Ordinance, so a set-off of a partnership debt against a claim by one partner alone was legally incompetent; the court therefore refused immediate allowance of the amendment but did not finally determine the issue, instead adjourning the appeal to permit the plaintiff to seek strike-out under O.18 r.19 and for both matters to be heard together.
27 Feb 1997

WONG SHUI SANG and Others v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID and Another

Citation

WONG SHUI SANG and Others v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV227/1996

Applying the Privy Council decision in Lam Island, the Court of Appeal held the defendants had disclosed an arguable case of adverse possession which could not properly be struck out on the existing record; concurrently the pleaded facts sufficiently asserted the essential elements of proprietary estoppel (knowledge and non‑objection to substantial improvements) to survive a strike‑out challenge; the non‑disclosure of the 3rd defendant's death was not shown to be deliberate and can be remedied by appointment of a representative, so the appeal must be allowed and the action remitted to trial.
22 Nov 1996

YUEN KWOK KEE and Another v. LO SAI WAH and Another

Citation

YUEN KWOK KEE and Another v. LO SAI WAH and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12704/1995

The pleaded facts disclosed an arguable cause of action. The allegation that the second agreement treated the $350,000 as part payment by the plaintiffs was properly pleaded as an implied term and a collateral agreement could bind the third party payer; whether the first agreement survived for formalities reasons under s5(1)(a) Cap.219 and thereby defeated the second agreement was not a plain and obvious answer on the pleadings so summary striking out was inappropriate. Accordingly the defendants\' appeal against Master Cannon\'s dismissal of the strike out summons was dismissed; consequentia…

Hong Kong Case Law

黃碩雄 對 侯百燊及另一人

GOLDEN SANDS LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

CHAN SHU KONG v. KWONG HING TRADING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

WONG SHUI SANG and Others v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID and Another

YUEN KWOK KEE and Another v. LO SAI WAH and Another

黃碩雄對侯百燊及另一人