Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of pleadings

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2024

LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1936/2021

Applicant was four days out of time without an affirmed explanation, and none of the four intended grounds demonstrated a real prospect of success or legal error in the exercise of judicial discretion; the naming error was immaterial, the submission did not require a statement of truth, and costs calculations were properly supported, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
3 Dec 2020

KH FOUNDATIONS LTD v. CHUN YIP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3019
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT43/2019

Court granted particulars limited to Requests 1 and 3 because those particulars were proportionate and necessary to bind the Defendant to its case, denied further particulars on Annex G as matters for expert evidence, and ordered production of the unredacted Superstructure Works contract because the Defence directly referred to it and the claimed redactions were not shown to be irrelevant or justified.
26 Jul 2019

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. HWH HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1853
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2943/2015

The court allowed Delco's proposed amendments to its Replies in large part because, on the materials before the court (affidavits, accounting records and annexed documents), the Scheme pleaded was not wholly speculative and there was sufficient evidential basis to raise an arguable case and invite inferences at trial; however specific particulars that lacked any proper basis (paras 6.2(1)(b) and (c) and associated paras 6.2(3) and (4)) were rejected; explicit reference to the Dutch Tax Authority's opinions was disallowed though factual findings supported by independent evidence could be plead…
18 Dec 2015

HOTUNG INVESTMENTS (CHINA) LTD v. ERIC SHEA KIM HOTUNG

Citation

HOTUNG INVESTMENTS (CHINA) LTD v. ERIC SHEA KIM HOTUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA77/2012

The plaintiff's requests for further particulars were unnecessary or irrelevant to the live issues and are dismissed; the defendant's consented amendment is allowed conditionally — the amended particulars for request 1(a) are inadmissible unless and until the Defence is amended to remove the internal inconsistency; costs follow the event with a net award to the defendant of $32,800 payable within 14 days.
10 Jun 2014

JOSEPH LEUNG & ASSOCIATES (a firm) v. OR FO CHUNG

Citation

JOSEPH LEUNG & ASSOCIATES (a firm) v. OR FO CHUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4738/2013

The Master erred in exercising his discretion because the Request for particulars was unnecessary given the Defence already sufficiently raised a challenge to the bill; the Master was wrong to assume an automatic stay would follow commencement of taxation proceedings; therefore the Costs Order (no order as to costs) could not be affirmed and costs of the Summons and the appeal were to be paid by JLA.
18 Sept 2013

LUEN TAT MERCHANDISE LTD v. MR. CHRISTMAS LTD

Citation

LUEN TAT MERCHANDISE LTD v. MR. CHRISTMAS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA121/2011

The summonses for further and better particulars were dismissed because the content of the defendant's complaints was already adequately pleaded, the plaintiff (as manufacturer) should know or be in a position to know the relevant facts without further particulars, and the outstanding requests were unnecessary for fair disposal and would cause undue cost and delay; therefore the applications were an improper tactical expansion rather than a necessary narrowing of issues.
14 Oct 2005

YEUNG TAK SHING MARCO v. NG MAN KWONG

Citation

YEUNG TAK SHING MARCO v. NG MAN KWONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6543/2004

The requested particulars sought evidential detail (source of funds and the author of the acknowledgement) rather than clarification of the pleaded case; the pleaded general nature was already clear, the requests amounted to a fishing expedition and were premature given disclosure and exchange of witness statements – accordingly the appeals succeed and the orders requiring those particulars are set aside.
12 Nov 2004

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. LABOUR BUILDING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. LABOUR BUILDING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV138/2004

The Court of Appeal affirmed the striking out of paragraphs 27 and 30 for failure to provide ordered particulars but preserved the defendants' right to apply to amend their defence and counterclaim to plead breach of fiduciary duties provided those allegations are not based on a conspiracy or allegations of acting in concert requiring particulars.
12 Jun 2002

Gold Insignia Electronic Co. Ltd. v. Ciponic Technology Co. Ltd.

Citation

Gold Insignia Electronic Co. Ltd. v. Ciponic Technology Co. Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3150/2001

The claim was dismissed because the plaintiff failed both to plead appropriation and implied assent with sufficient particulars and, on the evidence, failed to prove appropriation and implied assent so property did not pass to the defendant and plaintiff was not entitled to the price of the non-delivered goods.
13 Sept 1999

YE YING JIE v. SUCCESS CIVIL & FOUNDATION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

YE YING JIE v. SUCCESS CIVIL & FOUNDATION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ17042/1996

Although some procedural irregularities in service and the ex parte nature of some applications were established, the court exercised its discretion not to set aside the interlocutory judgments because the 2nd defendant's procedural defects were cured by a subsequent opportunity to be heard, the defendant's conduct was contumacious, there was no meritorious defence on the evidence, and overall justice required refusal to set aside.