MAGNITOGORSK INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL WORKS AND ANOTHER v. VAREX & CO. GMBH AND OTHERS
The court held that the defendants' responses were inadequate because they failed to state material facts and improperly relied on documentary discovery or the plaintiffs' own knowledge; therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to further and better particulars identifying the appointments (agency, exclusive distributor, consultant), the identity and transactions of the representative office, detailed transactional terms (buyers, price, quantity, contractual terms) and the financial institutions supplying the alleged US$1.6 billion credit facilities.
- Citation
- MAGNITOGORSK INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL WORKS AND ANOTHER v. VAREX & CO. GMBH AND OTHERS
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: Magnitogorsk Integrated Iron and Steel Works (also known as Magnitogorsky Metallurgitschchesky Kombinat); 2nd Plaintiff (in Its Personal Capacity and on Behalf of All Shareholders of the 4th Defendant Except 1st and 2nd Defendants): Pan‑Asia Worldwide Holdings Ltd; 1st Defendant: Varex & Co. GmbH; 2nd Defendant: Norbert Peters; 3rd Defendant: Catfield Limited; 4th Defendant: MMK Metal HK Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 27 September 2000
- Case Number
- HCA17492/1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Action (commercial/company) / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars of Defence
- Outcome
- Application allowed; plaintiffs entitled to further and better particulars as specified by the court
- Legal Topics
- Particulars of Pleading, Agency and Appointment, Exclusive Distribution Agreements, Credit Facilities and Financing, Discovery Vs Particulars
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Magnitogorsk Integrated Iron and Steel Works (also known as Magnitogorsky Metallurgitschchesky Kombinat)
1st Plaintiff
Pan‑Asia Worldwide Holdings Ltd
2nd Plaintiff (in Its Personal Capacity and on Behalf of All Shareholders of the 4th Defendant Except 1st and 2nd Defendants)
Varex & Co. GmbH
1st Defendant
Norbert Peters
2nd Defendant
Catfield Limited
3rd Defendant
MMK Metal HK Limited
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (commercial/company) / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars of Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants' answers to requests for further and better particulars were sufficient
- 2 Whether referring to documentary discovery or to the other party's knowledge can substitute for pleading material facts
- 3 Whether defendants must particularise appointments (agency/distributor/consultant), transaction details and identities of financial institutions
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the defendants' responses were inadequate because they failed to state material facts and improperly relied on documentary discovery or the plaintiffs' own knowledge; therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to further and better particulars identifying the appointments (agency, exclusive distributor, consultant), the identity and transactions of the representative office, detailed transactional terms (buyers, price, quantity, contractual terms) and the financial institutions supplying the alleged US$1.6 billion credit facilities.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; plaintiffs entitled to further and better particulars as specified by the court
Orders
- Defendants to provide particulars of how, when and where the 1st and 2nd defendants assisted the 1st plaintiff, including details of any appointments as agent or advisor
- Defendants to particularise the barter/trade/distribution transactions including names of buyers, prices, quantities and contractual terms for each transaction
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment