CHEUNG MAN YU v. LAU YUEN CHING AND OTHERS

CHEUNG MAN YU v. LAU YUEN CHING AND OTHERS

The appeal was dismissed because the statement of case, read together with the affidavits already filed, was sufficiently intelligible and the respondents' complaints challenged the sufficiency of evidence rather than the clarity of the pleading; therefore no further and better particulars were required and the matter should proceed to trial; costs nisi awarded to the applicant.

Citation
CHEUNG MAN YU v. LAU YUEN CHING AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Cheung Man Yu; 1st Respondent: Lau Yuen Ching; 2nd Respondent: Lau Chun Yau; 3rd Respondent: Lin Fat Tong Company Limited; 4th Respondent: Lin Fat Tong (an unincorporated association); 5th Respondent: The Secretary for Justice
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 December 2005
Case Number
CACV161/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Hearing and Reserved Judgment on Appeal From HCMP No.2421 of 2000
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Particulars of Statement of Case, Originating Summons, Order 120 Rules of the High Court, Section 57 a Trustee Ordinance, Striking Out, Costs
Source Language
EN
Trusts Charity Law Civil Procedure Equity Particulars of Statement of Case Originating Summons Order 120 Rules of the High Court Section 57 a Trustee Ordinance +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Man Yu

Applicant

Lau Yuen Ching

1st Respondent

Lau Chun Yau

2nd Respondent

Lin Fat Tong Company Limited

3rd Respondent

Lin Fat Tong (an unincorporated association)

4th Respondent

The Secretary for Justice

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Hearing and Reserved Judgment on Appeal From HCMP No.2421 of 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further and better particulars of the applicant's statement of case should be ordered
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 2(c) and 16 of the statement of case should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the statement of case is intelligible when read with the affidavits filed

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the statement of case, read together with the affidavits already filed, was sufficiently intelligible and the respondents' complaints challenged the sufficiency of evidence rather than the clarity of the pleading; therefore no further and better particulars were required and the matter should proceed to trial; costs nisi awarded to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order for further and better particulars