HO KUI WAH v. YU CHOW SAY MUI

HO KUI WAH v. YU CHOW SAY MUI

Majority held the order sought was too wide because it would compel the plaintiff to reveal her proofs/evidence; particulars may require a statement of the nature of the case (the reasons to be advanced) but not the facts and matters constituting the plaintiff's evidence; therefore the District Judge's refusal to make the broad order was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
HO KUI WAH v. YU CHOW SAY MUI
Parties
Appellant (defendant): HO KUI WAH; Respondent (plaintiff): YU CHOW SAY MUI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 1982
Case Number
HCMP400/1982
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant — Possession Claim Under S.53(2)(b) Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance / Appeal to Court of Appeal From District Judge's Refusal to Order Further and Better Particulars (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); liberty to appeal de bene esse granted earlier in proceedings
Legal Topics
Possession, Particulars, Interrogatories Vs Particulars, Discovery of Proofs, Appeal From Interlocutory Order
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Evidence Possession Particulars Interrogatories Vs Particulars Discovery of Proofs Appeal From Interlocutory Order

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HO KUI WAH

Appellant (defendant)

YU CHOW SAY MUI

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant — Possession Claim Under S.53(2)(b) Landlord and Tenant (consolidation) Ordinance / Appeal to Court of Appeal From District Judge's Refusal to Order Further and Better Particulars (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenant is entitled to particulars stating all facts and matters relied on to establish that premises are 'reasonably required' under s.53(2)(b)
  2. 2 Whether an order for particulars can compel disclosure of the plaintiff's evidence or proofs
  3. 3 Whether the request in form seeking 'all facts and matters' is properly a request for particulars or is in effect interrogatories/disclosure of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the order sought was too wide because it would compel the plaintiff to reveal her proofs/evidence; particulars may require a statement of the nature of the case (the reasons to be advanced) but not the facts and matters constituting the plaintiff's evidence; therefore the District Judge's refusal to make the broad order was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); liberty to appeal de bene esse granted earlier in proceedings

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Liberty to appeal de bene esse granted