Nicholas Pappadis and Another v. Chan Shing Sheung Barry and Others

Case No.

Court

Date16 Nov 1988

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCMP002005A/1988

1988, No. 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS

____________

BETWEEN

	NICHOLAS PAPPADIS	1st Applicant
	PAPPADIS ELECTRONICS LTD.	2nd Applicant

	AND

	CHAN SHING SHEUNG BARRY	lst Respondent
	NORMAN JARRETT	2nd Respondent
	CRIS CHIU-YIN YIP	3rd Respondent

_________________

Coram: Hon. Liu, J. in Court

Date of ruling: 16 November 1988

_________

RULING

________

(On Request for Particulars)

1. Mr Bunting seeks particulars. Counsel submits that particulars are vital, not merely essential, for him and his clients to know what case each of them has to meet. Counsel explains his own predicament in the conduct of the proceedings. Counsel also directs the Court's attention to various prejudices which the respondents may be subjected to.

2. For the applicants, Mr Graham maintains that particulars in the possession of the applicants and insofar as they are able to give, have been fully set out in the affidavits. Mr Graham is kind enough to intimate that whilst he would be obliged to furnish particulars should the Court so rule, he would take the preliminary step of identifying the portions in chapter and verse, in the documents kow in Court, on which the accusations made against the respondents are sought to be supported.

3. The notice of motion is one for committing these respondents for contempts. It is an application of a serious nature, and there would be dreadful consequences if the accusations are substantiated.

4. I share the anxiety of Mr Bunting that Counsel and the respondents in this case should be afforded full opportunity to know what the accusations levelled at each of them are.

5. I am not, again referred to the passages and affidavits. I have been so led through these douments. As it is, not being guided to the specific references, it is difficult for me to try to reach a conclusion as to whether sufficient particulars, within the ability of the applicants to give, have been given. As a preliminary step, I would invite Mr Graham to identify the documents and passages in support of each and every allegation against the respondents, after which, I would be in the better position to evaluate the contentions of the applicants and the respondents respectively.

(B. Liu)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Peter Graham instructed by M/s. Denton Hall Burgin & Warrens for the 1st and 2nd Applicants

Mr Michael Bunting instructed by M/s Baker & Mackenzie for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents