NICHOLAS PAPPADIS AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SHING SHEUNG BARRY AND OTHERS

NICHOLAS PAPPADIS AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SHING SHEUNG BARRY AND OTHERS

The court required the applicants to identify the documents and specific passages supporting each allegation and ruled that the general rule stands that the 1st and 2nd respondents must be put on election before the court will entertain submissions of no case to answer absent exceptional justification; the court allowed a recess for the respondents to take instructions on election.

Citation
NICHOLAS PAPPADIS AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SHING SHEUNG BARRY AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Applicant: Nicholas Pappadis; 2nd Applicant: Pappadis Electronics Ltd.; 1st Respondent: Chan Shing Sheung Barry; 2nd Respondent: Norman Jarrett; 3rd Respondent: Cris Chiu-Yin Yip
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 November 1988
Case Number
HCMP2005/1988
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (committal for Contempt) / Interim Hearing on Request for Particulars and Objections to No Case Submission (de Bene Esse Submissions)
Outcome
Court directed applicants to identify supporting documents and passages and refused to allow full no-case submissions for 1st and 2nd respondents without first putting them on election; recess granted to enable election instructions
Legal Topics
Particulars of Allegation, Submission of No Case to Answer, Election to Be Tried, Cross Examination, Undertaking Versus Court Order
Source Language
EN
Civil Contempt Civil Procedure Committal Proceedings Evidence and Proof Particulars of Allegation Submission of No Case to Answer Election to Be Tried Cross Examination +1 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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Pappadis

1st Applicant

Pappadis Electronics Ltd.

2nd Applicant

Chan Shing Sheung Barry

1st Respondent

Norman Jarrett

2nd Respondent

Cris Chiu-Yin Yip

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (committal for Contempt) / Interim Hearing on Request for Particulars and Objections to No Case Submission (de Bene Esse Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants must provide particulars of the allegations against each respondent
  2. 2 Whether a submission of no case to answer can be heard without putting respondents on election
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings are civil in nature and the appropriate procedure to be followed in committal applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court required the applicants to identify the documents and specific passages supporting each allegation and ruled that the general rule stands that the 1st and 2nd respondents must be put on election before the court will entertain submissions of no case to answer absent exceptional justification; the court allowed a recess for the respondents to take instructions on election.

Court Disposition

Court directed applicants to identify supporting documents and passages and refused to allow full no-case submissions for 1st and 2nd respondents without first putting them on election; recess granted to enable election instructions

Orders

  • Applicants to identify the documents and specific passages in support of each allegation against the respondents
  • 1st and 2nd respondents to be put on election before the court entertains their submissions of no case to answer