Selwyn Mar v. Christina Mar
Read the full judgment text of HCMC 97/1970 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This is an application by the Petitioner for further and better particulars of the Respondent's Answer.
|
HCMC000097/1970 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG DIVORCE JURISDICTION ACTION NO. 97 OF 1970 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Mr. B.L. Jones, Assistant Registrar in Chambers. Date of Judgment: 18th day of August 1971. ----------------- DECISION ----------------- 1. This is an application by the Petitioner for further and better particulars of the Respondent's Answer. 2. Since the summons was issued the Respondent has supplied the particulars requested in respect of paragraphs 4(c), 4(d), the first part of paragraph 5(b), 6(d), 7(ii), 9, 12(ii), (iii), (iv), 17, 18, 20(a)(i), 20(b)(iii), 21, 27(a)(i), 33, 34(b)(ii), 35, 36(a)(i) and (ii) and 39(d). The Respondent has agreed to supply particulars in respect of paragraphs 12(i), 15(ii), 20(a)(ii), 20(b)(ii), 20(b)(iv), 26, 27(b)(ii), 28(b), 30(a) and 34(b)(i). The Petitioner has withdrawn his request for further and better particulars of paragraphs 6(e) and 32(a); paragraphs 39(b)(i) and 39(b)(ii) have been withdrawn on the Respondent's undertaking that the Petitioner deliberately refrained from informing the Respondent of details of invitations and 39(c) limited to the matters relied upon as constituting taunts. With regard to the remainder of paragraph 39(c) the Petitioner will rely upon the matters pleaded in the answer to be amplified by further particulars. 3. As a result there are seven requests outstanding upon which the Respondent has refused to deliver particulars. They are the second part of sub-paragraph (b) of 5, and paragraphs 7(i), 15(i), 16, 20(b)(i), 32(d) and 36(b). All these requests except 36(b) relate to requests for details of the reasons for the alleged assaults or quarrels or how they were instigated by the Petitioner. The other request 36(b) requires details of the acts which are relied upon as 'pestering'. 4. The object of particulars is to enable the party asking for them to know what case he has to meet at the trial and therefore to save unnecessary expense and to avoid allowing the parties to be taken by surprise. 5. Although the Petitioner may be aware of the true facts of the allegations he is nevertheless entitled to know the Respondent's case in relation thereto which may be quite different. The Petitioner is entitled to bind the Respondent to a definite story and it will cause no hardship to the Respondent to deliver the particulars requested in respect of the assaults and quarrels. 6. Mr. Bokhary for the Respondent cited the dictionary definition of 'to pester' which is quite clear but by itself the word 'pestering' is too vague to enable the Petitioner to have a definite picture of what the Respondent exactly means. A person can annoy another in one of many different ways and it is for the Respondent to disclose how she was pestered. Accordingly the Petitioner is entitled to details of the acts which the Respondent relies upon as 'pestering'. 7. There will, therefore, be an order for the Respondent to deliver within seven days further and better particulars of the second part of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 5, paragraphs 7 part one, 15 part one, 16, 20(b) part one, 32 part two and 36(b). 8. The costs of and incidental to this application will be the Petitionersin any event and there will be a certificate for counsel. 9. Dated this the 18th day of August, 1971.
Representation: |