Yeung, Kwong Tat Edward v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1628/2010 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 November 2010.
1. This morning this court has to deal with altogether 21 actions, all taken out by the plaintiff Yeung Kwong Tat Edward. The various defendants of those actions are set out below:
Cited by 8 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
HCA 1628, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659, 1668, IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1628 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1655 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1656 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1657 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1658 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1659 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1668 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1669 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1670 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1671 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1672 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1673 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1674 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1675 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1677 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1680 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1691 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1692 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1693 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1694 OF 2010 BETWEEN
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1695 OF 2010 BETWEEN
(Heard Together) Before : Mr. Registrar K.W. Lung in Chambers (Open to Public) Date of Hearing : 25 November 2010 Date of Reasons for Decision: 25 November 2010 ___________________________________ REASONS FOR DECISION ___________________________________ 1.This morning this court has to deal with altogether 21 actions, all taken out by the plaintiff Yeung Kwong Tat Edward. The various defendants of those actions are set out below:
2.These matters were brought to my attention because in the indorsements of the writs, the plaintiff had set out the reasons and the claims. The contents of the indorsements are the same except for the amounts claimed. I found that the contents of the indorsements are not comprehensible. To quote one example in HCA 1655/2010:
3.I take the view that on the contents above, even though the defendants do not file any defence; in fact, the defendants will find it difficult to defend, given the nature of the contents above, the court should not enter judgment in default in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to Order 19 of the Rules of the High Court. 4.I have borne in mind the fundamental principle set out by the Court of Appeal in Ha Francesca v Tsai Kui Kan [1982] HKC 382, which other courts follow, that it is only plain and clear case that there is no reasonable cause of action that the court will strike out the claim. 5.I therefore decided that, in order to give effect to the objectives under Order 1A of the Rules of the High Court, in particular, rule 1(a) (b) and (d)[1], by exercising the power under Order 1B rule 1(2)(c) and (k)[2] and under Order 18 rule 19[3] of the Rules of the High Court, the plaintiff should be called upon to attend at a hearing to show cause why his indorsements of the writs should not be struck out and his actions should not be dismissed. 6.By letters dated 19 November 2010, I called upon the plaintiff to attend the hearing today for the above purpose, with copies to the defendants involved stating that their attendance for this hearing is not required. But they are entitled to attend this hearing. 7.This morning, the plaintiff has failed to appear before me. I have in the public seats various representatives of the defendants’ attending this hearing. They have confirmed to me that they are just to hear what happens and they do not intend to make any submission to me. 8.The hearing is scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m.. I have waited until 10:20 a.m.. But the plaintiff is still absent. I therefore proceed to deal with this matter in the absence of the plaintiff. 9.I have noted that after we have sent the letters calling upon the plaintiff to attend this hearing, we have received from the plaintiff 21 copies of Notices of Discontinuance all dated 20 November 2010 in respect of all 21 cases. According to our record, the plaintiff has not filed those Notices of Discontinuance with the court. 10.According to the decision of the Court of First Instance in Lai M Ma v Tang Yin Lin HCA 448/2010, Chu J. held that if the plaintiff has shown no reasonable cause of action, the court can refuse to enter judgment even if the defendant has failed to file the defence. The court has the jurisdiction to, on its own motion, strike out the plaintiff’s pleading or writ under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court. 11.Since the plaintiff has failed to appear before me today to show cause why his writs should not be struck out and based upon the fact that the indorsements on the writs of those 21 actions have disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendants, I decide to exercise my powers under Order 1B and Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court to strike out the 21 indorsements of writs and dismiss those 21 actions and so I now do with costs to the defendants. 12.I now make the order in respect of each of the Actions as set out in Paragraph 1 in terms of the following:-
Representation: Plaintiff in person, absent [1] Order 1A, rule 1(a) to increase the cost-effectiveness of any practice and procedure to be followed in relation to proceedings before the Court; (b) to ensure that a case is dealt with as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable; (d) to ensure fairness between the parties; [2] Order 1B, rule 1(2)(c): require a party or a party’s legal representative to attend the Court; (k) dismiss or give judgment on a claim after a decision on a preliminary issue; [3] Order 18 rule 19(1): The Court may, either of its own motion or on application, at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the indorsement of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the indorsement on the ground that …… | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1628/2010