MAGNITOGORSK INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL WORKS AND ANOTHER v. VAREX & CO. GMBH AND OTHERS

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' answers to requests for further and better particulars were sufficient
  2. 2 Whether referring to documentary discovery or to the other party's knowledge can substitute for pleading material facts
  3. 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