PANCO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LTD. v. DING PENG and Others

PANCO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LTD. v. DING PENG and Others

The court ordered that the defendants must supply the requested further particulars within 14 days because the defences contained inadequate and unclear allegations (including unusual pleas about shareholder approval and failures of notice) and struck out parts of the defences that were meaningless or irrelevant; costs were ordered nisi in favour of the plaintiffs.

Citation
PANCO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LTD. v. DING PENG and Others
Parties
Plaintiff (a5370/1993): Prosperfield Ventures Limited; 1st Defendant (a5370/1993): Tripole Trading Limited; 2nd Defendant (a5370/1993; CL 98/1995): Zheng Lie Lie; 4th Defendant (a5370/1993); 1st Defendant (cl 98/1995): Ding Peng; Intended 5th Defendant (a5370/1993); 3rd Defendant (cl 98/1995): Ng Hiu Nam; Plaintiff (cl 98/1995): Panco Industrial Holdings Limited; 4th Defendant (cl 98/1995): Deng Liu Gen; 5th Defendant (cl 98/1995): China Projects Limited; 6th Defendant (cl 98/1995): Kenrey Finance Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 February 1996
Case Number
HCCL98/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings: Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars and Striking Out Parts of the Defence / Hearing in Chambers on Summons to Compel Particulars; Interlocutory Order and Costs Nisi Made
Outcome
Summons to compel particulars granted in part; defendants ordered to provide particulars; identified parts of the defences struck out; costs ordered nisi for the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Particulars and Further Particulars, Striking Out Pleadings, Failure of Consideration, Notice of Board Meeting, Shareholder Approval, Rescission of Contract
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Particulars and Further Particulars Striking Out Pleadings Failure of Consideration Notice of Board Meeting Shareholder Approval +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosperfield Ventures Limited

Plaintiff (a5370/1993)

Tripole Trading Limited

1st Defendant (a5370/1993)

Zheng Lie Lie

2nd Defendant (a5370/1993; CL 98/1995)

Ding Peng

4th Defendant (a5370/1993); 1st Defendant (cl 98/1995)

Ng Hiu Nam

Intended 5th Defendant (a5370/1993); 3rd Defendant (cl 98/1995)

Panco Industrial Holdings Limited

Plaintiff (cl 98/1995)

Deng Liu Gen

4th Defendant (cl 98/1995)

China Projects Limited

5th Defendant (cl 98/1995)

Kenrey Finance Limited

6th Defendant (cl 98/1995)

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings: Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars and Striking Out Parts of the Defence / Hearing in Chambers on Summons to Compel Particulars; Interlocutory Order and Costs Nisi Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants must supply particulars to support denials and unusual pleas in their defences
  2. 2 Whether the defence that shareholder 'total and unreserved support' bars challenge requires particulars and how that support was given
  3. 3 Whether allegations about improper convening of a board meeting require particulars of notice or reasons it was properly convened

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered that the defendants must supply the requested further particulars within 14 days because the defences contained inadequate and unclear allegations (including unusual pleas about shareholder approval and failures of notice) and struck out parts of the defences that were meaningless or irrelevant; costs were ordered nisi in favour of the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Summons to compel particulars granted in part; defendants ordered to provide particulars; identified parts of the defences struck out; costs ordered nisi for the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Defendants to supply the particulars as indicated by the court within 14 days
  • Parts of the defence identified by the court struck out as meaningless and irrelevant