DIVERSEY (HK) LTD v. AMERICAN DRY CLEANING & LAUNDRY CO LTD

DIVERSEY (HK) LTD v. AMERICAN DRY CLEANING & LAUNDRY CO LTD

The Amended Further and Better Particulars, taken as a whole, substantially complied with the order for particulars; the single omission (identifying each lot/customer) was attributable to the defendant's inability, was de minimis, and did not justify striking out the Defence and Counterclaim; accordingly the Registrar's refusal to strike out was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Citation
DIVERSEY (HK) LTD v. AMERICAN DRY CLEANING & LAUNDRY CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Diversey (H.K.) Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: American Dry Cleaning & Laundry Co. Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 1978
Case Number
HCA2790/1977
Procedural Posture
Contract Sale of Goods; Claim for Price and Services / Interlocutory Appeal From Registrar's Order in Chambers (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Further and Better Particulars, Striking Out Defences, Time Orders Vs Sufficiency, Merchantable Quality, Default and De Minimis
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Sale of Goods Equity and Remedies Further and Better Particulars Striking Out Defences Time Orders Vs Sufficiency Merchantable Quality +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diversey (H.K.) Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

American Dry Cleaning & Laundry Co. Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Sale of Goods; Claim for Price and Services / Interlocutory Appeal From Registrar's Order in Chambers (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Further and Better Particulars were sufficient
  2. 2 Whether the Registrar's order was a time order or dealt with mode/sufficiency of compliance
  3. 3 Whether there was a default justifying striking out the Defence and Counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Further and Better Particulars, taken as a whole, substantially complied with the order for particulars; the single omission (identifying each lot/customer) was attributable to the defendant's inability, was de minimis, and did not justify striking out the Defence and Counterclaim; accordingly the Registrar's refusal to strike out was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Respondent