CHEUNG YAT PING AND ANOTHER v. YIP TAI HIM AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG YAT PING AND ANOTHER v. YIP TAI HIM AND ANOTHER

The court refused all outstanding further and better particulars because the particulars sought were evidential or technical matters properly obtained through discovery, witness statements or expert reports and the plaintiffs failed to show that the particulars were necessary at this interlocutory stage for disposing fairly of the cause or saving costs under Order 18 r12(3B); accordingly the master's order of 19 March 2013 was upheld and costs awarded to the defendants.

Citation
CHEUNG YAT PING AND ANOTHER v. YIP TAI HIM AND ANOTHER
Parties
Appellant: Plaintiffs; Respondent: Defendants
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 May 2013
Case Number
DCCJ2259/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/tort (water Leakage) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Order
Outcome
Plaintiffs' appeal dismissed; master's order dated 19 March 2013 upheld; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs for the application and for the appeal
Legal Topics
Further and Better Particulars, Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Discovery, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Tort Property Law Costs Further and Better Particulars Pleadings Expert Evidence Discovery +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Appellant

Defendants

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/tort (water Leakage) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars requested were necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs under Order 18 rule 12(3B)
  2. 2 Whether the particulars sought constituted evidence or technical matters properly dealt with by discovery, witness statements or expert reports
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' Request was premature and whether the defendants should bear costs for particulars provided after the summons

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused all outstanding further and better particulars because the particulars sought were evidential or technical matters properly obtained through discovery, witness statements or expert reports and the plaintiffs failed to show that the particulars were necessary at this interlocutory stage for disposing fairly of the cause or saving costs under Order 18 r12(3B); accordingly the master's order of 19 March 2013 was upheld and costs awarded to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' appeal dismissed; master's order dated 19 March 2013 upheld; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs for the application and for the appeal

Orders

  • All outstanding requests for further and better particulars disallowed
  • Plaintiffs' appeal against the first paragraph of the order dated 19 March 2013 dismissed