MILLION DECADE LTD v. TUNG FAI also known as DONG HUI

MILLION DECADE LTD v. TUNG FAI also known as DONG HUI

The court ordered the FBP under the 1st Request (particularising paragraph 13 of the statement of claim) as necessary to disclose material facts and enable fair preparation, but refused the 2nd and 3rd Requests as unnecessary under Order 18 r 12(3B); the court refused leave to file the Weis' 3rd round supplemental witness statements (Latest WS Drafts) because they were repetitive, argumentative and tangential and would not assist fair adjudication, so the WS Amended Appeal was dismissed.

Citation
MILLION DECADE LTD v. TUNG FAI also known as DONG HUI
Parties
Plaintiff (hca1062/2013): Million Decade Limited; Plaintiff (hca1063/2013): Top Ample Limited; Defendant in Md/ta; Plaintiff in Hca1660/2013: Tung Fai (Dong Hui); Defendant in Hca1660/2013; Principal of Wei Parties: Wei Dong; Co Owner; Related Party to Wei Parties: Yao Juan; Witness; Son of Wei Dong: Wei Yao (Wei Jr)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Case Number
HCA1062/2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeals From Registrar (civil) / Rehearing Before Deputy High Court Judge in Chambers (appeal Hearing on 15 March 2016)
Outcome
FBP appeal allowed in part (1st Request granted; 2nd and 3rd Requests refused); WS Amended Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Further and Better Particulars, Supplemental Witness Statements, Oral Contract, Set Off, Case Management, Order 18 Rule 12(3 B) RHC, Order 38 Rule 2 a RHC
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Evidence Costs Company Law Further and Better Particulars Supplemental Witness Statements Oral Contract +4 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Million Decade Limited

Plaintiff (hca1062/2013)

Top Ample Limited

Plaintiff (hca1063/2013)

Tung Fai (Dong Hui)

Defendant in Md/ta; Plaintiff in Hca1660/2013

Wei Dong

Defendant in Hca1660/2013; Principal of Wei Parties

Yao Juan

Co Owner; Related Party to Wei Parties

Wei Yao (Wei Jr)

Witness; Son of Wei Dong

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeals From Registrar (civil) / Rehearing Before Deputy High Court Judge in Chambers (appeal Hearing on 15 March 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further and better particulars (FBP) should be ordered under Order 18 r 12(3B) RHC and, if so, to what extent
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to file third‑round supplemental witness statements under Order 38 r 2A RHC
  3. 3 Admissibility and relevance of post‑contractual conduct to prove existence/performance of an alleged oral agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered the FBP under the 1st Request (particularising paragraph 13 of the statement of claim) as necessary to disclose material facts and enable fair preparation, but refused the 2nd and 3rd Requests as unnecessary under Order 18 r 12(3B); the court refused leave to file the Weis' 3rd round supplemental witness statements (Latest WS Drafts) because they were repetitive, argumentative and tangential and would not assist fair adjudication, so the WS Amended Appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

FBP appeal allowed in part (1st Request granted; 2nd and 3rd Requests refused); WS Amended Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Tung shall file and serve the further and better particulars specified in the 1st Request within 14 days from date of judgment
  • There shall be no order as to costs in respect of the FBP Appeal