Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of defence

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2022

MULTIFOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HO CHOW PING DANNY t/a BILLION SUCCESS CONSULTANT CO

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA234/2020

On the evidence as a whole the December Agreement was the concluded operative contract, the defendant's assertions (including that the November Agreement was operative, that the parties agreed variations, and that the December Agreement was forged) lacked cogent supporting contemporaneous evidence and were not capable of being believed such that no real triable issue was raised; summary judgment was therefore properly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Nov 2019

CHAN LUEN v. CHAN KWONG CHI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1038/2018

The Unless Order and the underlying FBP Order unambiguously required substantive answers; Nil Answers or mere objections did not satisfy the prescribed mode of compliance, therefore the defendants did not comply and must provide substantive answers to the specified requests; the court will not consider the propriety of those requests at this enforcement stage.
21 Oct 2019

張嘉謙及另一人 v. 龐克訓及另二人

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2523
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2145/2018

Defendants failed to particularize and their affidavit assertions were not shown to be credible or supported by contemporaneous documents; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for the sums due under the loan agreements including principal, overdue interest, contractual damages and enforcement expenses.
20 Aug 2019

DELTA WEALTH FINANCE LTD v. CHAN WAI SUN

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1108
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5743/2018

Defendant failed to advance a credible, particularised defence or triable issue; documentary evidence showed execution and receipt of agreement copies and summary calculation of sums due was established by plaintiff; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and granted for the contracted principal and interest as computed by the court (on the offered 365-day basis).
16 Nov 2016

WAH SUN HONG LTD v. WONG LEE YUK PING AGNES

Citation

WAH SUN HONG LTD v. WONG LEE YUK PING AGNES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA333/2016

The court held that most of the plaintiff's requests sought evidential detail rather than material facts and therefore were not required as particulars; only limited particulars (requests 1.1(2), 1.1(3) and 1.2(1)(a)) were ordered to be provided within 14 days. The remainder of the summons was dismissed and a costs order nisi was made in favour of the defendant with directions for assessment if not varied.
4 May 2010

IGC HONG KONG LTD v. CHAUHAN, NILESH MANHARLAL t/a GOLD COINS GROUP

Citation

IGC HONG KONG LTD v. CHAUHAN, NILESH MANHARLAL t/a GOLD COINS GROUP
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3522/2009

The defendant produced no credible evidence of any agency relationship between IGC Belgium and the plaintiff; the plaintiff's documentary and factual evidence established it was the contracting party; the alleged set-off against a non-party was irrelevant; accordingly the defendant failed to meet the threshold of a bona fide arguable defence and summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiff.
2 Jun 2008

PAI CHIN MING v. LUO XIAO AND OTHERS

Citation

PAI CHIN MING v. LUO XIAO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2693/2006

The appeal was allowed and the master's order was set aside because the requested particulars that sought witness names and particulars of a denial were improper: witness identities constitute evidence rather than particulars and particulars of denials are unnecessary since inconsistencies are matters for trial and cross-examination.
14 Mar 2008

CHEUNG MEI KEI v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

CHEUNG MEI KEI v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI884/2007

The defendant must supply particulars for Request (5) because the defence positively pleaded the existence of a reminder/reporting system and must particularise the circumstances; Requests (8) and (10) are disallowed because they amount to pure denials that do not require further particulars.
26 Apr 2007

QUENTIN KEITH HILLS v. MARLENE RITA WITTMAN

Citation

QUENTIN KEITH HILLS v. MARLENE RITA WITTMAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2149/2006

The defendant's accounts (investment or gift) were rendered unbelievable by contemporaneous emails and lack of particulars or supporting evidence; she failed to show any triable issue in law or fact, therefore summary judgment was appropriate to award the plaintiff the balance claimed and the security for costs application must be dismissed.
4 Aug 2003

FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU

Citation

FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA574/2002

The proposed amendment (paragraph 10(a)) was inadequate because it amounted to a general denial and failed to particularise how the admitted payments were legitimate or made with the claimant's knowledge or consent; given the late stage and the modern restrictive approach to amendments (Kettlemen) the application to amend is dismissed with costs.