SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAP YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA HK TRANSPORT CO

SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAP YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA HK TRANSPORT CO

The court found that while the Defendant had set out the substantive facts relied upon to support implication of the limitation term, the particulars and documentary answers were not in the required form and contained an incorrect date; accordingly the appropriate remedy was an order requiring the Defendant to file and serve further and better particulars within a fixed time rather than striking out the defence, leaving the question of whether the term can be implied to trial.

Citation
SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAP YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA HK TRANSPORT CO
Parties
1st Plaintiff: SITEC ELECTRONICS LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: AMIC TECHNOLOGY (TAIWAN) INC.; 3rd Plaintiff: DONGGUAN SITEC SEMI-CONDUCTOR COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 April 2006
Case Number
DCCJ1456/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Hearing on Appeal Against Master's Decision and Application for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order for further and better particulars to be filed and served; costs to Plaintiffs with Certificate for Counsel.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Particulars, Unless Order, Business Efficacy, Limitation of Liability
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Implied Terms Particulars Unless Order Business Efficacy Limitation of Liability

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SITEC ELECTRONICS LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

AMIC TECHNOLOGY (TAIWAN) INC.

2nd Plaintiff

DONGGUAN SITEC SEMI-CONDUCTOR COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Hearing on Appeal Against Master's Decision and Application for Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant has furnished sufficient particulars of the alleged implied term limiting compensation
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's responses complied with Order 18 rule 12(7) and the form requirements in the White Book
  3. 3 Whether failure to provide particulars justified striking out paragraphs 18 and 24 of the Amended Defence or whether the issue is for trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the Defendant had set out the substantive facts relied upon to support implication of the limitation term, the particulars and documentary answers were not in the required form and contained an incorrect date; accordingly the appropriate remedy was an order requiring the Defendant to file and serve further and better particulars within a fixed time rather than striking out the defence, leaving the question of whether the term can be implied to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order for further and better particulars to be filed and served; costs to Plaintiffs with Certificate for Counsel.

Orders

  • Defendant to file and serve, within 14 days, under the title of the action and in proper form, further and better particulars in answer to the Request dated 14 September 2005.
  • In particular, in answer to Request B5 the Defendant shall state all facts relied upon as to how the alleged term is incorporated into the agreement between the 3rd Plaintiff and the Defendant.