Read the full judgment text of HCCT 101/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 14 March 2002 before Deputy High Court Judge To in Chambers.
Procedure — Civil procedure — Construction and Arbitration proceedings — Application to strike out pleadings for failure to serve further and better particulars pursuant to an unless order — Whether order is time order or requires sufficiency of particulars — Whether Plaintiff's Reply illusory or sufficient — Whether strike out appropriate for lack of particulars, vexatiousness or abuse of process — Court holds unless order is a time order requiring filing and service of Reply within 28 days; default means failure to comply within time, not inadequacy of particulars — Plaintiff served Reply within time and it is fairly entitled 'particulars' although not perfect — Some requests frivolous, others dependent on expert reports and discovery — Strike out dismissed as unmeritorious and an abuse of process by Defendant, who appears to seek tactical advantage — Application dismissed with costs and certificate for one counsel.
Legal issues: Meaning and scope of the unless order · Whether the Plaintiff's Reply is illusory · Application to strike out Plaintiff's pleadings under the unless order, Order 18 rule 19, or inherent jurisdiction
Outcome: Application to strike out the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim and Reply and Defence to Counterclaim dismissed.
Cited by 1 case