WENDEN ENGINEERING SERVICE CO. LTD. v. TECHNIC CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

WENDEN ENGINEERING SERVICE CO. LTD. v. TECHNIC CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

The court refused the 1st defendant's application to withdraw the interrogatories because unusual circumstances justified allowing the interrogatory (it was not premature and the information could be provided); the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim preservation because the reserve account was not 'property' nor a 'specific fund' under Order 29 and because a live dispute over the contractual chain and the employer's entitlement to repayment made a preservation order inappropriate.

Citation
WENDEN ENGINEERING SERVICE CO. LTD. v. TECHNIC CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff: Wenden Engineering Service Company Ltd; 1st Defendant: Technic Construction Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Tang Chuen Fook
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 2001
Case Number
HCCT120/1997
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications (chambers Decision)
Outcome
1st defendant's summons to withdraw interrogatories refused; plaintiff's summons for interim preservation dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Interim Preservation of Funds, Discovery, Order 26 Rule 3(2), Order 29 Rule 2
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Construction Law Contract Law Interrogatories Interim Preservation of Funds Discovery Order 26 Rule 3(2) Order 29 Rule 2

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wenden Engineering Service Company Ltd

Plaintiff

Technic Construction Company Limited

1st Defendant

Tang Chuen Fook

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications (chambers Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interrogatories served by plaintiff should be withdrawn as premature under Order 26 r 3(2)
  2. 2 Whether court should order interim preservation/payment into court of reserve funds under Order 29 r 2
  3. 3 Whether the reserve account constitutes "property" or a "specific fund" within Order 29

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the 1st defendant's application to withdraw the interrogatories because unusual circumstances justified allowing the interrogatory (it was not premature and the information could be provided); the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim preservation because the reserve account was not 'property' nor a 'specific fund' under Order 29 and because a live dispute over the contractual chain and the employer's entitlement to repayment made a preservation order inappropriate.

Court Disposition

1st defendant's summons to withdraw interrogatories refused; plaintiff's summons for interim preservation dismissed.

Orders

  • Refusal of 1st Defendant's application under Order 26 r 3(2) to withdraw interrogatories; costs to the plaintiff.
  • Dismissal of Plaintiff's application under Order 29 r 2 for interim preservation/payment into court of reserve account; costs to the 1st Defendant.