Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Further and better particulars

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

KOO MING KOWN v. REV. MR. MOK KONG TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 802
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2016

The summons for further and better particulars was dismissed because the current pleadings did not allege non-authenticity of the bachelor and master degrees, the requested particulars sought evidence or amounted to fishing and cross-examination rather than material facts necessary for fair disposal, and therefore were immaterial to the pleaded issues; the requested extension of time was refused accordingly.
29 Aug 2025

DRACCO NETHERLANDS B.V. v. SIMBA TOYS GMBH & CO. KG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3931
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA304/2014

The Plaintiff's blanket reliance on lengthy narrative witness statement paragraphs and a non-comprehensive annex did not constitute adequate answers to the defendant's requests for further and better particulars; the Court ordered the Plaintiff to serve specific, re-formulated particulars for the identified requests within 14 days, but refused late reformulated requests seeking detailed monetary figures where audit/account evidence would be required and the trial was imminent.
28 Aug 2025

KOO MING KOWN v. THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4680
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA694/2024

The appeal was dismissed because the court was not satisfied that the requested particulars were necessary for fairly disposing of the matters or for saving costs; many requests rested on incorrect premises or went beyond the Defence's averments, concerned matters of evidence or were otherwise irrelevant; the Defence as pleaded (notably paragraph 12 and answers to requests) provided sufficient clarity; the appeal did not amount to an abuse of process to justify indemnity costs.
12 May 2025

霍尼卡姆技術（香港）有限公司 v. 靳哲

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA465/2022

The Master's direction to clarify the scope of the Defendant's authenticity challenge was a permissible exercise of case management powers, but the imposition of an automatic debarment unless order was disproportionate and was set aside; Defence Counsel's on‑the‑day confirmation was treated as compliant FBP and leave to file FBP out of time was granted; there was no appealable adverse order as to expert directions so that limb was dismissed; costs were ordered against the Defendant.
6 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. SIT YI KI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3533
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC115/2021

The court refused the applications because the prosecution legitimately lacked sufficient evidence to particularize and name the 156 account holders or to treat Lau as a co-conspirator, and because the court cannot compel the prosecution to amend or add charges; the prosecution's clear position that it was alleging a single global conspiracy meant there was no basis to require an indictment amendment or alternative count and refusal did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial.
19 Jul 2024

LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1866
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1936/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the Summons was a proper interlocutory application not premature, the Master did not err in refusing to compel the Commissioner or Constable Tsang to give evidence or disclose the identity of the alleged shooter (requests either lacked foundation, would improperly require admissions inconsistent with pleadings or sought irrelevant opinion evidence), and the Master’s apportionment of costs was a lawful exercise of discretion.
5 Jul 2024

WESOFT NATIONMARK LTD v. NATIONMARK (H.K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1695
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1317/2019

The Master erred in assessing costs by placing weight on the mere necessity of the FBP hearing and failed to give adequate weight to the defendants' substantial success in resisting the majority of requests; accordingly the Costs Order awarding P 50% and awarding none to D1–D3 was unreasonable and was set aside, with a new order that the plaintiff pay one‑third of the 1st to 3rd defendants' costs of opposing the FBP and pay the costs of the appeal, to be summarily assessed.
5 Jul 2024

WESOFT NATIONMARK LTD v. NATIONMARK (H.K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1695
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA724/2019

The Master’s Costs Order was unreasonable because the Master failed to adequately account for the defendants’ substantial success in resisting 15 of 18 FBP requests; appeal allowed, Costs Order set aside, and the plaintiff ordered to pay one-third of the defendants' costs of opposing the FBP application, with summary assessment directions.
20 Mar 2024

LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1936/2021

Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed because the Plaintiff was substantially and inexcusably out of time, failed to explain delay, and the intended grounds of appeal lacked a real prospect of success (requests were in substance evidence/submission or cross‑examination and perjury issues are for trial); prejudice to Defendant and costs awarded to Defendant.
22 Feb 2024

YOUNG CRYSTAL LTD AND OTHERS v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1710/2021

The Statement of Claim, as drafted and after operation of the consent unless order, is incoherent and fails to particularise the crucial fraud/misrepresentation allegations (paras 32–35 having been struck out by the unless order); the deceit, Banking Ordinance and Basic Law claims are inadequately pleaded and unsustainable on the present materials; P3's Basic Law claim is totally unsustainable and is dismissed; P1 and P2 are given one final opportunity to apply for leave to file a fresh Statement of Claim under a strict timetable; costs of the summons ordered on an indemnity basis to defendan…