Ocean More Enterprises Ltd. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Plc and Wan Chung Holdings Ltd. (Third Party)

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.