Read the full judgment text of HCCT000112A/1997 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 22 January 1998 before the Hon Mr Justice Findlay, in Chambers.
Civil Procedure — injunctions and damages — interference with right of way — failure to provide particulars — orders for further and better particulars — whether plaintiff's particulars sufficient — discretion on dismissal for failure to comply — Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance. The plaintiff sued defendants for unlawful interference with its right of way. Defendants denied interference and relied on availability of alternative access and statutory bar under the Roads Ordinance. Multiple orders were made for further particulars. Plaintiff supplied particulars inadequately but not contumeliously. The court held the particulars were sufficient to inform defendants of the case to meet and that failure to provide further particulars would preclude evidence on those points at trial. Costs of the application were ordered in the cause. The matter was left open for further argument. Outcome: Plaintiff not barred at this stage; costs in cause; further hearing possible.
Outcome: The court tentatively held that the plaintiff had sufficiently particularised its case to allow the defendants to know the claim against them, despite imperfections. The plaintiff's failure to provide certain particulars was not contumelious. Costs of the application were ordered to be in the cause. The matter may be further argued with a two-hour hearing if the parties wish.