ROTORUA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. and Another v. REESON CRANE & ENGINEERING LTD. and Others

ROTORUA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. and Another v. REESON CRANE & ENGINEERING LTD. and Others

The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend and approved a consent order requiring the plaintiffs to serve agreed particulars by 23 April 1998 failing which the claim against the second to fourth defendants would be struck out, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application on an indemnity basis because the plaintiffs unjustifiably failed to supply the necessary particulars.

Citation
ROTORUA DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. and Another v. REESON CRANE & ENGINEERING LTD. and Others
Parties
First Plaintiff: Rotorua Development Company Limited; Second Plaintiff: Brightford Limited; First Defendant: Reeson Crane & Engineering Limited; Second Defendant: Kumagai Gumi Company Limited; Third Defendant: Entrecanales y Tavora SA; Fourth Defendant: Cubiertas y MZOV SA; Fifth Defendant: Mass Transit Railway Corporation
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 March 1998
Case Number
HCCT124/1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (interlocutory Applications for Particulars, Amendment and Strike Out) / Interlocutory (application to Amend and to Strike Out; Costs Application)
Outcome
Amendments allowed; consent order entered requiring service of agreed particulars by 23 April 1998 or strike out of claim against second to fourth defendants; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Particulars, Amendment of Statement of Claim, Strike Out, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Pleadings Costs Commercial Litigation Particulars Amendment of Statement of Claim Strike Out Indemnity Costs

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rotorua Development Company Limited

First Plaintiff

Brightford Limited

Second Plaintiff

Reeson Crane & Engineering Limited

First Defendant

Kumagai Gumi Company Limited

Second Defendant

Entrecanales y Tavora SA

Third Defendant

Cubiertas y MZOV SA

Fourth Defendant

Mass Transit Railway Corporation

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (interlocutory Applications for Particulars, Amendment and Strike Out) / Interlocutory (application to Amend and to Strike Out; Costs Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs' replies to request for particulars were adequate
  2. 2 Whether claim should be struck out for failure to comply with order
  3. 3 Whether leave to amend should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend and approved a consent order requiring the plaintiffs to serve agreed particulars by 23 April 1998 failing which the claim against the second to fourth defendants would be struck out, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application on an indemnity basis because the plaintiffs unjustifiably failed to supply the necessary particulars.

Court Disposition

Amendments allowed; consent order entered requiring service of agreed particulars by 23 April 1998 or strike out of claim against second to fourth defendants; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Amendments to the statement of claim allowed with costs to the defendants
  • Consent order: plaintiffs to serve agreed particulars by 23 April 1998 or claim against the second to fourth defendants to be struck out