Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party notice

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2025

THE JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF SUPER PERFECT LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. LEUNG YUK LAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 602
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA227/2022

Although beneficial ownership of registered shares is relevant to whether a sole beneficial owner could ratify directors' breaches under the Duomatic principle, the court exercised its case management discretion to set aside the issue-based Third Party Notice because the central issues could be resolved in the main action and joinder of the third party would be unnecessary, cause additional costs and delay and risk multiplicity of proceedings; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the TPN set aside.
2 Oct 2024

TASMANIA FEEDLOT PTY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ22/2023

The summons to strike out was dismissed because Toll HK had sufficiently pleaded that Toll Australia acted as its agent and that Toll HK was an undisclosed principal entitled to sue under the OOCL Waybill; the strike out threshold is high, the asserted defects were minor and inferable from the pleaded and evidenced factual matrix, and any disputed facts require trial rather than summary disposal.
14 Jun 2024

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL formerly known as CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD formerly known as CITIC KA WAH BANK LTD v. LI YAN HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2208/2019

The court held it had no jurisdiction to grant leave because the Judgment determined the substantive rights between the plaintiff and the Firm and was therefore appealable as of right under RHC Order 59 r21(1)(a). Independently, the court found the plaintiff's intended third party claims were unarguable: the DT Claim failed because the mortgage had priority under LRO s3(2) and there was no loss to the plaintiff, and the Li Claim (non est factum/misrepresentation) was frivolous and bound to fail because contemporaneous documentary and testimonial evidence contradicted the 1st defendant's premi…
15 Jun 2023

GOLDEN LEAP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HARAPLAZA CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT63/2022

Leave to issue or serve the third party notice was refused because the defendant failed to comply with the mandatory affidavit and particularity requirements of Order 16 rule 2(2) and the Notice lacked necessary particulars so no prima facie case was shown; paragraphs 25–39, the word 'Counterclaim' and the prayer for relief in the Defence and Counterclaim were struck out because they were irrelevant to the plaintiff's claims, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous or vexatious; costs were ordered to the plaintiff.
18 Nov 2021

中紀投資有限公司 v. 青山道國際工業大廈業主立案法團

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1737
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2021

Joinder of the 9A owner was appropriate: s.16 BMO does not prevent an incorporated owners' use of the third party procedure or the court's joinder powers; absence of demonstrated prejudice and the need to avoid multiplicity and inconsistent findings justify joining STL Co Ltd as 2nd Respondent even at the appeal stage.
10 Sept 2019

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3020/2015

The TP Notice was struck out and action against Kawai dismissed because key pleaded factual bases (notably that WFOE had or could access funds to discharge the loan) were demonstrably contradicted by contemporaneous evidence and therefore frivolous and vexatious; there was no evidence Kawai knew or controlled the Mortgagors so those claims were unsustainable; and there was no duty on a Lender Director to actively give prior written consent in the absence of any refinancing proposal, rendering the prior consent claim impossible to succeed.
29 Mar 2019

LI LIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. HERPORT HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 826
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ160/2015

Clause 3(b) of the NYK bill of lading is a valid, exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Tokyo District Court covering "any and all actions against the Carrier in respect of the Goods or arising out of the Carriage"; Herport was contractually bound to sue NYK in Tokyo and bore the heavy burden of showing strong reasons to proceed in breach of that clause, which it failed to discharge; material nondisclosure by Herport in its ex parte application was found; accordingly the Master’s leave to serve out and the service on NYK were set aside.
10 Aug 2018

SUPER CRUISE LTD v. COSIMO BORRELLI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1854
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1460/2013

The Registrar was correct that the Summons as drafted sought to strike out a 'claim' under the wrong rubric; Order 16 r.1 governs third party claims and allows issue‑based joinder such that the absence of privity does not automatically render a third party pleading disclosable of no reasonable cause. The TPSOC pleaded arguable bases for indemnity/contribution not exclusively contractual, so it is not a plain and obvious case to strike out; amendment to reframe the Summons was refused as untimely and without merit. Appeal dismissed.
13 Oct 2017

KP FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v. BOK FAT YUEN SPENDER AND OTHERS

Citation

KP FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v. BOK FAT YUEN SPENDER AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA429/2016

Where a third party notice is issued under Order 16(1)(c) there is generally no necessity to order exchange of formal pleadings between the defendant and the third party if the issues to be determined are stated with sufficient precision; the court declined to order exchange of pleadings between KPFS and AH&Co because the issues in the third party notices were by and large sufficiently defined and the purposes of third party procedure (avoiding multiplicity and binding findings) would be frustrated by requiring pleadings; instead the court permitted exchange of succinct statements or an agree…
28 May 2015

AU YEUNG WAN AND ANOTHER v. TSUI SAU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

AU YEUNG WAN AND ANOTHER v. TSUI SAU YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA484/2010

O.16 r.1(2) requires leave where a defendant issues a third party notice after serving a defence when the action was begun by writ; the court must give effect to the clear statutory text and the notices issued by the 1st defendant without leave are set aside. An application for leave must follow O.16 r.2(1) procedures (ex parte application supported by affidavit). The defendants' application for an order for non-party costs against the former 2nd plaintiff was dismissed as misconceived and addressed by the costs rules (O.62).