TOP EXPRESS ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAM KIN ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

TOP EXPRESS ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAM KIN ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

The appeal was allowed because the particulars sought by the defendants sought evidence rather than clarifying the pleadings; the plaintiffs' pleadings and disclosed investigation material were sufficiently particular to enable the defendants to prepare their defence, therefore the Master's order for further particulars was set aside.

Citation
TOP EXPRESS ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAM KIN ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Top Express Engineering Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Welcome Engineering Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Kam Kin Engineering Limited; 2nd Defendant: Li Kam Yin; 3rd Defendant: Chan Yin, Joyce
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 October 2005
Case Number
HCA2590/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Master's Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master's order for further particulars dismissed/set aside
Legal Topics
Particulars, Pleadings, Disclosure, Interlocutory Applications, Liability for Conversion
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Tort Conversion Evidence Property Particulars Pleadings Disclosure +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Top Express Engineering Limited

1st Plaintiff

Welcome Engineering Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Kam Kin Engineering Limited

1st Defendant

Li Kam Yin

2nd Defendant

Chan Yin, Joyce

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Master's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Extent of 1st defendant's liability for alleged hijacking of PCCW cables
  2. 2 Whether defendants are entitled to further and better particulars identifying other subcontractors and each occasion of unauthorised cable use
  3. 3 Whether the requests amount to a demand for evidence rather than particulars

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the particulars sought by the defendants sought evidence rather than clarifying the pleadings; the plaintiffs' pleadings and disclosed investigation material were sufficiently particular to enable the defendants to prepare their defence, therefore the Master's order for further particulars was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master's order for further particulars dismissed/set aside

Orders

  • Defendants' summons of 12 January 2005 dismissed
  • Order of Master Jack Wong requiring further and better particulars set aside