Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out under order 18 rule 19

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2017

X v. PANG KA WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

X v. PANG KA WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI44/2017

Master Leong dismissed all defendants' interlocutory summonses and the plaintiff's redundant summons: he refused to stay proceedings for lack of medical report because existing medical documents were sufficient and psychiatric evidence could be permitted later; he refused to disallow the amendment adding the 2nd defendant because the limitation defence was not shown to be unarguable at this stage; and he refused to strike out the pleadings because claims against the 2nd defendant were not scandalous or an abuse and such issues were premature for interlocutory disposal. Costs ordered nisi in f…
5 Sept 2017

WAH NAM GROUP LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND ANOTHER

Citation

WAH NAM GROUP LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA960/2015

The court held that the consent order was made pursuant to s200(5) not s205 and therefore did not operate as a statutory release of the former liquidators; the Sanction Decision sanctioning the settlement did not preclude separate claims for misappropriation/negligence not resolved by that sanction; HCA960/2015 was struck out because the pleaded loss was merely reflective (company’s loss reflected in shareholder diminution) and thus plainly unsustainable, whereas HCA962/2015 pleaded direct company causes of action (misappropriation of shareholdings) and could not be struck out; limitation, no…
27 Sept 2016

CHONG ON NEI AND ANOTHER v. HAN CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHONG ON NEI AND ANOTHER v. HAN CHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA995/2012

The pleadings failed to allege facts capable of establishing that the 1st defendant had actual or ostensible authority to bind the 2nd defendant; accordingly there was no reasonable cause of action in contract, the Quistclose trust claim falls with the contract claim, and unjust enrichment fails because any enrichment of the 2nd defendant was not at the 1st plaintiff's expense but at the 1st defendant's; therefore the claim against the 2nd defendant was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out.
21 Aug 2012

NG CHI KEUNG v. HUI CHI MING AND OTHERS

Citation

NG CHI KEUNG v. HUI CHI MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1529/2011

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the new argument advanced was not raised in the applicant's supporting affirmation and is barred by the Flywin principle; moreover, the argument lacks merit as the questions raised are factual and for trial, the Incentive Agreement is not essential to the plaintiff's cause of action and there is a strong prima facie case based on contemporaneous documentary evidence, so there is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
3 Nov 2006

SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAP YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA HK TRANSPORT CO

Citation

SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAP YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA HK TRANSPORT CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1456/2004

The court held that on the pleadings as a whole it was not a plain and obvious case that the defence of limitation of liability by an implied term was unsustainable; there were issues of law and fact for trial, therefore the strike-out appeal was dismissed and the master’s decision was upheld; the Defendant's application to re-amend the defence was granted with the Plaintiffs' consent regarding that amendment.
10 Aug 2005

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HO YIU KUEN JACKY AND OTHERS

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HO YIU KUEN JACKY AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3524/2005

The court exercised case management powers to balance expedition and justice: plaintiff was granted limited time (21 days) to file an umbrella affirmation in opposition to the RPO and striking-out summonses and defendants 7 days to reply; other steps in the main proceedings were stayed pending disposal of those summonses; the summonses were to be heard together and the earlier hearing before HHJ H C Wong on 12 August 2005 was vacated and the matter adjourned for argument on 3 October 2005 with specified directions for bundles, skeletons and authorities; costs of plaintiff's first and second s…
6 Jun 1995

FONG PAK KAI v. FONG CHUE YIN LING MARGARET

Citation

FONG PAK KAI v. FONG CHUE YIN LING MARGARET
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/1994

The Court of Appeal held Deputy Judge Gill erred in law: a person party to a marriage void ab initio by reason of bigamy is entitled to seek a decree of nullity and ancillary relief; the petition was not plainly unsustainable and therefore should not have been struck out under Order 18 r 19; the striking out order was set aside and the petition must proceed to be heard on its merits.

Hong Kong Case Law

X v. PANG KA WAI AND ANOTHER

WAH NAM GROUP LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND ANOTHER

CHONG ON NEI AND ANOTHER v. HAN CHUN AND OTHERS

NG CHI KEUNG v. HUI CHI MING AND OTHERS

SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAP YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA HK TRANSPORT CO

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HO YIU KUEN JACKY AND OTHERS

FONG PAK KAI v. FONG CHUE YIN LING MARGARET