PROSPERFIELD VENTURES LTD. v. TRIPOLE TRADING LTD. and Others

PROSPERFIELD VENTURES LTD. v. TRIPOLE TRADING LTD. and Others

Where defences are vague or raise matters without sufficient detail the court will order defendants to supply particulars within a set period and may strike out parts of the defence which are meaningless or irrelevant; here the defendants were ordered to supply the specified particulars within 14 days and identified parts of the defences were struck out, costs ordered nisi to plaintiffs.

Citation
PROSPERFIELD VENTURES LTD. v. TRIPOLE TRADING LTD. and Others
Parties
Plaintiff (1993, No A5370): Prosperfield Ventures Limited; 1st Defendant (1993, No A5370): Tripole Trading Limited; 2nd Defendant (1993, No A5370; 1995, No CL 98): Zheng Lie Lie; 4th Defendant (1993, No A5370) and 1st Defendant (1995, No CL 98): Ding Peng; Intended 5th Defendant (1993, No A5370) and 3rd Defendant (1995, No CL 98): Ng Hiu Nam; Plaintiff (1995, No CL 98): Panco Industrial Holdings Limited; 4th Defendant (1995, No CL 98): Deng Liu Gen; 5th Defendant (1995, No CL 98): China Projects Limited; 6th Defendant (1995, No CL 98): Kenrey Finance Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 February 1996
Case Number
HCA5370/1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Further Particulars (high Court) / Interlocutory (chambers Hearing on Summons for Particulars)
Outcome
Order made compelling defendants to supply particulars within 14 days; identified parts of the defences struck out; costs ordered nisi in favour of the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Further Particulars, Striking Out, Rescission, Consideration, Shareholder Approval, Notice of Board Meeting
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Civil Litigation Further Particulars Striking Out Rescission Consideration +2 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosperfield Ventures Limited

Plaintiff (1993, No A5370)

Tripole Trading Limited

1st Defendant (1993, No A5370)

Zheng Lie Lie

2nd Defendant (1993, No A5370; 1995, No CL 98)

Ding Peng

4th Defendant (1993, No A5370) and 1st Defendant (1995, No CL 98)

Ng Hiu Nam

Intended 5th Defendant (1993, No A5370) and 3rd Defendant (1995, No CL 98)

Panco Industrial Holdings Limited

Plaintiff (1995, No CL 98)

Deng Liu Gen

4th Defendant (1995, No CL 98)

China Projects Limited

5th Defendant (1995, No CL 98)

Kenrey Finance Limited

6th Defendant (1995, No CL 98)

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Further Particulars (high Court) / Interlocutory (chambers Hearing on Summons for Particulars)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants must supply particulars to clarify pleaded defences
  2. 2 Whether alleged inadequacy or failure of consideration is pleaded with sufficient particularity
  3. 3 Whether a board meeting was properly convened and whether notice was given to a director

Ratio Decidendi

Where defences are vague or raise matters without sufficient detail the court will order defendants to supply particulars within a set period and may strike out parts of the defence which are meaningless or irrelevant; here the defendants were ordered to supply the specified particulars within 14 days and identified parts of the defences were struck out, costs ordered nisi to plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Order made compelling defendants to supply particulars within 14 days; identified parts of the defences struck out; costs ordered nisi in favour of the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Defendants to supply particulars as indicated in the judgment within 14 days
  • Parts of the defences identified in the judgment struck out as meaningless or irrelevant