Read the full judgment text of CACV 000024/1989 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 May 1989 before Hunter JA, Mayo J, Barnes J.
Civil procedure – further and better particulars – quantum of claim – interest and damages – whether particulars given by reference to identified discovered documents are sufficient – whether defendants entitled to detailed breakdown of derivation of interest sums – loan agreement with syndicate of sixteen banks and deposit-taking companies – three capital facilities (premium, construction, overdraft) – interest assessed under LIBOR, HIBOR, and BLR – lead bank's assessment conclusive absent manifest error – defendants not 'in the dark' about interest calculations – giving particulars by reference to contemporary cumulative documents is proper and convenient in a complicated case – request for facts and matters relied upon in support of relevant rate and identification of precise contractual provisions refused – defendants' appeal dismissed – statutory interpretation – Deposit-taking Companies Ordinance (Cap 328) s.22(1) – meaning of 'person' in prohibition on lending more than 25 per cent of paid-up capital and reserves to 'any one person, firm, corporation or company' – whether 'person' includes a group of companies, a family, or three named individuals – whether extended definition in Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap 1) applies – express enumeration of 'firm, corporation or company' alongside 'person' creates deliberate contrast between individual and other legal entities – reading in extended definition would produce tautology and conflict – 'person' means individual only – Chung group not a 'person' within s.22 – proposed defence unarguable – leave to re-amend defence refused – plaintiffs' appeal allowed – matter urged to proceed to trial without further delay
Legal issues: Sufficiency of further and better particulars of quantum given by reference to discovered documents · Meaning of 'person' in s.22 of the Deposit-taking Companies Ordinance (Cap 328)
Outcome: Defendants' appeal against refusal of further and better particulars dismissed; plaintiffs' appeal against grant of leave to re-amend allowed; leave to amend defence to plead s.22 of the Deposit-taking Companies Ordinance refused.