NG WING SIN v. CHAN LAI FAN AND OTHERS

NG WING SIN v. CHAN LAI FAN AND OTHERS

Defendants are entitled at the interlocutory stage to know the evidence upon which the Plaintiff relies to establish the essential element of knowledge in a deceit claim; consequently the Master's order was varied to require the Plaintiff within 14 days to state the nature of his case as to the specified further and better particulars rather than striking out the claim at this stage.

Citation
NG WING SIN v. CHAN LAI FAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: NG WING SIN; 1st Defendant: CHAN LAI FAN; 2nd Defendant: CHEUNG HIU FAN; 3rd Defendant: CHU SIU FAT; 4th Defendant: C.K. MOK & CO. (a firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 October 1994
Case Number
HCA7089/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Appeal From Master's Order on Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Master's order varied to require further particulars; no strike out; 3rd and 4th Defendants' cross-appeal dismissed as unnecessary
Legal Topics
Deceit, Further and Better Particulars, Pleading of Knowledge, Strike Out Applications, Power of Attorney
Source Language
EN
Tort Fraud Contract Property Law Civil Procedure Deceit Further and Better Particulars Pleading of Knowledge +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG WING SIN

Plaintiff

CHAN LAI FAN

1st Defendant

CHEUNG HIU FAN

2nd Defendant

CHU SIU FAT

3rd Defendant

C.K. MOK & CO. (a firm)

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Appeal From Master's Order on Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has given sufficient particulars to sustain a claim in deceit
  2. 2 Whether the 3rd Defendant (clerk) had the requisite knowledge of falsity to ground deceit
  3. 3 Whether the Master's order should be varied or set aside and whether the claim should be struck out as disclosable

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants are entitled at the interlocutory stage to know the evidence upon which the Plaintiff relies to establish the essential element of knowledge in a deceit claim; consequently the Master's order was varied to require the Plaintiff within 14 days to state the nature of his case as to the specified further and better particulars rather than striking out the claim at this stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Master's order varied to require further particulars; no strike out; 3rd and 4th Defendants' cross-appeal dismissed as unnecessary

Orders

  • The Master's order is varied: Plaintiff to state within 14 days from date of judgment the nature of his case in relation to Further and Better Particulars requested by the 3rd and 4th Defendants on 21 February 1994 under para. 13A(5) requests (i),(ii),(iii); para. 13A(6) requests (i),(ii); and para. 13A particulars...
  • No strike out order is made at this stage; if defendants seek strike out they must issue a summons.