Ocean More Enterprises Ltd. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Plc and Wan Chung Holdings Ltd. (Third Party)
Read the full judgment text of HCCT000012A/1997 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 11 February 1999 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Applications for further and better particulars within a civil proceeding in the High Court (Court of First Instance), concerning the obligations of defendants and third party to clarify allegations. The first defendant argued it was not pursuing some allegations but the court clarified that a failure to receive particulars from the second defendant did not imply abandonment. The court ordered specific particulars to be provided within prescribed deadlines, subject to confirmations of abandonment. On costs, the court rejected first defendant’s arguments that previous orders or communication excused non-provision and ordered costs against the first and second defendants in favour of the plaintiff, and costs against the third party in favour of the first defendant. This judgment clarifies procedural obligations on particulars and costs consequences in interlocutory applications.
Legal issues: Request for further and better particulars · Costs of particulars applications
Outcome: The first and second defendants are ordered to provide specified particulars; the third party is ordered to provide specified particulars; costs ordered with the first and second defendants to pay plaintiff’s costs and third party to pay first defendant’s costs.
|
HCCT000012A/1997 1997, No. Con 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Coram: The Hon Mr Justice Findlay, in Chambers Date of hearing: 9 February 1999 Date of handing down of judgment: 11 February 1999 _______________ JUDGMENT _______________ 1. I have before me applications by the plaintiff for further and better particulars to be supplied by the first and second defendants, and an application by the first defendant for such particulars to be supplied by the third party. 2. As to the request for further and better particulars from the first defendant, the main point of contention between the parties is that the first defendant says that it has made it clear that, according to Mr Graham, it was not pursuing the allegations in respect of which the particulars are sought. This is not really so. What the first defendant said is that it was not able to particularise the allegations because it has not received these particulars from the second defendant. That does not say that the first defendant is abandoning the allegations. In fact, it says the opposite. I think the situation should be made clear. Accordingly, I order that that first defendant supply the particulars requested in requests (1), (2), (3), (7), (8), (9) and (14) of the plaintiff's request within 28 days, subject to the qualification that, if the first defendant says unequivocally that it is not pursuing the allegations in respect of which those particulars are requested, that will be a sufficient answer. 3. Subject to the matter of costs, the first defendant does not oppose an order that it supply the further particulars requested in paragraphs (5)(a) and (6)(a) and (b), so far as it refers to paragraph (5)(a), of the plaintiff's request. The first defendant is ordered to supply these within 28 days. 4. As to the plaintiff's request for particulars from the second defendant, the only requests pursued are those in paragraphs (1)(a), and (6) to (9). Miss Tsang does not oppose an order in these terms. Accordingly, the second defendant is ordered to supply those particulars within 21 days. 5. The first defendant is pursuing only the requests for further particulars contained in paragraphs (5)(a) and (6)(a) and (b), so far as it refers to paragraph (5)(a), of its request. Miss Tsang does not object to these. The third party is order to supply these particulars within 21 days. 6. There remains only the question of costs. Both Mr Graham and Miss Tsang say that many of requests were abandoned, as they were. This point would only have some merit if the particulars ordered had been supplied or, at least, offered. This was not done. Mr Graham repeats his point that the first defendant made the position clear to the plaintiff. I have not accepted that. Mr Graham's other point is that some of the particulars had already been ordered, and others should have been requested at the same time. That may be so but the first defendant did not supply the particulars concerned, and did not offer to supply the particulars it says should have been requested earlier. It seems to me that there is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The first defendant and the second defendant are ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of its applications, and the third party is ordered to pay the costs of the first defendant's application.
Representation: Mr Peter Clayton, instructed by Messrs Kwok & Chu, for the plaintiff. Mr Peter Graham, instructed by Messrs Deacons Graham & James, for the first defendant. Miss Teresa Tsang, of Messrs Lee & Chan, for the second defendant and third party. |