MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. v. ATLAS LTD. AND ANOTHER

MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. v. ATLAS LTD. AND ANOTHER

The appeal was allowed because requiring the Defendants at this interlocutory stage to disclose their valuation particulars would force premature disclosure of evidential material contrary to the existing timetable for expert reports and would prejudice the Defendants; the pleadings already sufficiently identified the claim so particulars were unnecessary at this point.

Citation
MARINER INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. v. ATLAS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff; 1st Defendant by Counterclaim: Mariner International Hotels Limited; 1st Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Atlas Limited; 2nd Defendant: Hang Lung Development Company Limited; 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim: Sino Land Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 October 1999
Case Number
HCA10821/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (sale of Shares/property) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Order (particulars)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Master Kwan dated 15 September 1999 set aside
Legal Topics
Damages, Particulars, Valuation of Property, Expert Evidence
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Civil Procedure Commercial Law Damages Particulars Valuation of Property Expert Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mariner International Hotels Limited

Plaintiff; 1st Defendant by Counterclaim

Atlas Limited

1st Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Hang Lung Development Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Sino Land Company Limited

2nd Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (sale of Shares/property) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Order (particulars)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants must provide detailed particulars of valuation at interlocutory stage
  2. 2 Whether requiring particulars would prematurely compel disclosure of evidential material before expert reports are exchanged
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings already sufficiently identify the claim so as to render early particulars unnecessary

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because requiring the Defendants at this interlocutory stage to disclose their valuation particulars would force premature disclosure of evidential material contrary to the existing timetable for expert reports and would prejudice the Defendants; the pleadings already sufficiently identified the claim so particulars were unnecessary at this point.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Master Kwan dated 15 September 1999 set aside

Orders

  • Order of Master Kwan requiring Defendants to provide particulars set aside
  • Order nisi that the Plaintiff pay the Defendants' costs here and before the Master in any event