Robert Arthur James Saunders v. Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master Solicitors

HCA002981/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Mr. Registrar Jones in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: 12th January 1973.

-----------------

DECISION

-----------------

1. The defendants in these two actions which can conveniently be dealt with together, apply to strike out the plaintiff's Statement of Claim and the Particulars of Claim endorsed thereon under O.18 r.19 of the Rules of the Supreme. Court on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable cause of action and/or are scandalous, frivolous and vexatious/or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. James L.J. Davy v. Garrett 1877-78, 7 Ch. D. at page 486 said:-

"A defendant may claim ex debito justitiae to have the plaintiff's case presented in an intelligible form, so that he may not be embarrassed in meeting it."

3. Bowen L.J. in Knowles v. Roberts (1888) 38 Ch. D. at page 270 said:-

"It seems to me that the rule that the court is not to dictate to parties how they should frame their case, is one that ought always to be preserved sacred. But that rule is, of course, subject to this modification and limitation, that the parties must not offend against the rules of pleading which have been laid down by the law; and if a party introduces a pleading which is unnecessary, and it tends to prejudice, embarrass and delay the trial of the action, it then becomes a pleading which is beyond his right."

4. Order 18, rule 15, provides that the plaintiff shall specify in his Statement of Claim the relief or remedy which he claims. Upon reading the Statements of Claim and the particulars endorsed, it is far from clear as to what the relief or remedies sought are, whilst the nature of the claims are quite unintelligible.

5. In O.J. 2981/72 the Plaintiff in paragraph 1 claims "negligence" and in paragraph 2 "that the defendants failed in their duty to act impartially whilst acting for the plaintiff and Wayfoong Finance Ltd." However, the plaintiff has failed to specify any particulars to show in what way the defendants are alleged to have been negligent, nor has he set out details of any duty owed and what breach he contends has been made. The other paragraphs show no cause of action. The Particulars of Claim endorsed on the Writ are unintelligible.

6. In O.J. 2982/72 the Plaintiff in paragraph 1 claims that the defendants failed to protect or advise the plaintiff as required under the Banking Ordinance, but neither the section nor details of the complaints relied upon have been set out. In paragraph 2 the plaintiff appears to raise an allegation of negligence against Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master, the first named defendant in O.J. 2981/72, for which he holds the defendants to be responsible, but I find upon these particulars that there is no cause of action. The Particulars of Claim endorsed on the Writ as in O.J. 2981/72 are unintelligible.

7. It may well be that the plaintiff has a good cause of action, but in the manner that the Statements of Claim have been drawn they do not comply with the rules of pleading, and to a great extent are unintelligible, with the result that it is impossible for the defendants to plead in reply.

8. In the circumstances, there will be an order for the Statement of Claim and the Particulars of Claim in each case to be struck out and the actions will be dismissed. The defendants are entitled to their costs in both actions to be taxed on a common fund basis. There will be a Certificate for Counsel.

9. Dated the 12th day of January, 1973.

Representation: