X v. MELVYN KAI FAN LAI AND ANOTHER

X v. MELVYN KAI FAN LAI AND ANOTHER

The 2nd respondent failed to prove the requested particulars were 'necessary' for a fair disposal or to save costs under Order 18 r12(3B); the ANOC together with claimant's sworn witness statements already furnish sufficient particulars for the respondent to prepare its defence and any further particulars would amount to cross-examination on paper; accordingly the summons for FBP is dismissed and the matter of limitation and s46(3) issues may be addressed at trial or by separate application.

Citation
X v. MELVYN KAI FAN LAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Claimant: X; 1st Respondent: Melvyn Kai Fan Lai; 2nd Respondent: Leigh & Orange Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2017
Case Number
DCEO4/2016
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Action (sex Discrimination) / Decision on Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs in favour of the claimant
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Further and Better Particulars, Limitation Period, Costs
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Sex Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Sexual Harassment Further and Better Particulars Limitation Period Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Claimant

Melvyn Kai Fan Lai

1st Respondent

Leigh & Orange Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Action (sex Discrimination) / Decision on Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the further and better particulars (FBP) sought by the 2nd respondent are 'necessary' under Order 18 rule 12(3B) for the fair disposal of the matter or saving costs
  2. 2 Whether the particulars sought are merely to enable cross-examination on paper or to expose weaknesses in the claimant's pleaded case
  3. 3 Whether parts of the claimant's complaint are time-barred under section 86 of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and the effect of EOC proceedings on the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd respondent failed to prove the requested particulars were 'necessary' for a fair disposal or to save costs under Order 18 r12(3B); the ANOC together with claimant's sworn witness statements already furnish sufficient particulars for the respondent to prepare its defence and any further particulars would amount to cross-examination on paper; accordingly the summons for FBP is dismissed and the matter of limitation and s46(3) issues may be addressed at trial or by separate application.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs in favour of the claimant

Orders

  • Summons dated 14 October 2016 dismissed
  • Costs to be awarded in favour of the claimant