WISE SECURITY LTD v. NIP FUNG SUI AND ANOTHER
The statement of claim failed to particularise the confidential information and how it was misused; accordingly the Registrar's refusal to order particulars was set aside and the plaintiff was ordered to provide specified further and better particulars within 14 days.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- WISE SECURITY LTD v. NIP FUNG SUI AND ANOTHER
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wise Security Limited; 1st Defendant: Nip Fung Siu; 2nd Defendant: HK-Asian Security Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 9 August 2005
- Case Number
- HCA1387/2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Misuse of Confidential Information; Procuring Breach of Contract; Unlawful Interference / Appeal From Registrar's Dismissal of Summons for Further and Better Particulars (in Chambers)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; Registrar's order dismissed and set aside; plaintiff ordered to provide specified particulars.
- Legal Topics
- Misuse of Confidential Information, Procuring Breach of Contract, Unlawful Interference, Particulars of Claim, Pleading Sufficiency
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wise Security Limited
Plaintiff
Nip Fung Siu
1st Defendant
HK-Asian Security Limited
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Misuse of Confidential Information; Procuring Breach of Contract; Unlawful Interference / Appeal From Registrar's Dismissal of Summons for Further and Better Particulars (in Chambers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the statement of claim sufficiently identified the confidential information alleged to have been misused
- 2 Whether particulars should have been ordered where the pleading lacked detail as to misuse
- 3 Whether the Registrar's dismissal of the 1st defendant's summons for particulars should be overturned
Ratio Decidendi
The statement of claim failed to particularise the confidential information and how it was misused; accordingly the Registrar's refusal to order particulars was set aside and the plaintiff was ordered to provide specified further and better particulars within 14 days.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; Registrar's order dismissed and set aside; plaintiff ordered to provide specified particulars.
Orders
- Plaintiff to give answers to the specified requests for further and better particulars annexed to the summons dated 30 March 2005 in respect of requests 1(a),(b),(c), 2(a), 3(b), 4(a),(b), 5(a),(b),(c) and 7 within 14 days from the date of the order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj HCA 1387/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 1387 OF 2003 BETWEEN WISE SECURITY LIMITED Plaintiff and NIP FUNG SUI 1st Defendant HK-ASIAN SECURITY LIMITED 2nd Defendant Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers Date of Hearing : 9 August 2005 Date of Judgment : 9 August 2005 J U D G M E N T AUTONUMOUT This is an appeal by the 1st defendant from the decision of Registrar C Chan given on 4 May 2005 dismissing the 1st defendant s summons dated 30 March 2005 for further and better particulars of the statement of claim. AUTONUMOUT The plaintiff s causes of action against the 1st defendant as set out in the statement of claim are for misuse of confidential information, procuring a breach of contract and alternatively, a claim based on unlawful interference. AUTONUMOUT As the statement of claim pleads, the 1st defendant was employed by the plaintiff as a general manager from 1 April 1996 to 11 May 2002. He was dismissed by the plaintiff on 11 May 2002. He is said to have had access to confidential business information of the plaintiff. AUTONUMOUT The 2nd defendant was incorporated on 8 November 2002. It is alleged that the 2nd defendant took over the plaintiff s contract with a Joint Venture Company. It is alleged that between 3 November 2001 and 10 May 2002 the 1st defendant, through the 2nd defendant, successfully competed with the plaintiff in relation to the contract with the Joint Venture Company and also seduced the Joint Venture Company to transfer the plaintiff s contract to the 2nd defendant. AUTONUMOUT It is also alleged that the 1st defendant in joint enterprise with the 2nd defendant deliberately failed to supervise security guards so that the plaintiff was in breach of its contract with the Joint Venture Company. It is said that this was an indirect interference by the defendants with a view to procuring a breach of contract. AUTONUMOUT Mrs. Ki, for the plaintiff, submitted that the 1st defendant knew all along what the confidential information was. She also submitted that directions have already been given by the Listing Master and that the matter is ready for trial save for this appeal. She submitted that in the circumstances the appeal should be dismissed. AUTONUMOUT I am unable to accept the submissions of Mrs. Ki. It is useful to remember the functions of properly particularized pleadings. This includes informing the other side of the nature of the case that they have to meet. It also includes tying the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go into any matters not included in the pleading and particulars. AUTONUMOUT The statement of claim as pleaded lacks any particulars whatsoever as to what the confidential information is that the plaintiff is seeking to protect. It also lacks any particulars as to how it is said that the 1st defendant has misused the confidential information. AUTONUMOUT A plaintiff must specify in sufficient detail the nature, scope and identity of the confidential information. Where this is not done in the statement of claim, an order for particulars will be made. AUTONUMOUT The plaintiff is entitled to particulars of the case it has to meet in respect of each of the causes of action against the 1st defendant. I am satisfied that the 1st defendant is entitled to most of the particulars it seeks by its summons. AUTONUMOUT I allow the appeal and set aside the Registrar s order. I make an order that the plaintiff do give answers to the following requests for further and better particulars of the statement of claim as per copy annexed to the summons dated 30 March 2005 within 14 days from the date of this order : under requests 1a., b., c., 2a., 3b., 4a., b, 5a., b., c. and 7. Those are the requests in respect of which an order is made. (Arjan H. Sakhrani) Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court Mrs Helen Ki, instructed by Messrs Andy Choi & Co., for the plaintiff Mr Frederick H F Chan, instructed by Messrs Ellen Au & Co., for the 1st defendant PAGE - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V 1udk 1udk S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V (#p# (#p# r p# (#p# (#p# r p# "@AB9D / Jz @m2z ]C]6 uxB26I ]C]6 & 6" CACV abc-sak-hca.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary CACV Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8