Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scuttling

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 1982

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV83/1981

Re-amendment permitting broad new allegations of scuttling and conspiracy to defraud was disallowed because the pleaded particulars were woefully insufficient to meet the strict requirement for particularity in fraud allegations, notwithstanding that lateness alone is not decisive; however, the striking out of paragraph 7 (no bona fide loss) was properly upheld for want of particulars, and the judge's discretionary order for ship's papers was properly made and is to stand.
4 Jun 1982

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV56/1982

The Court held that the re-amendment to plead fraud and conspiracy was wrongly allowed because the proposed re-amended Points of Defence lacked the requisite particularity required for allegations of fraud; consequently the re-amendment was disallowed. The Court upheld the striking out of inadequate particulars in paragraph 7 of the original Points of Defence. Separately, the Court held that an order for ship's papers was within the Judge's discretion and properly made on the affidavits disclosing reasonable grounds to suspect fraud and therefore confirmed that order.
4 Jun 1982

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV68/1981

The re-amendment to plead fraud and conspiracy was disallowed because the proposed Re-Amended Points of Defence failed to plead fraud and conspiracy with the requisite particularity required by law; lateness alone was not determinative but lack of particularity was fatal. The strike-out of paragraph 7 for want of particularity was upheld. However, the order for ship's papers was properly made in the judge's discretion because the affidavits disclosed reasonable grounds to suspect fraud and such discovery may enable a properly particularised pleading later.

Hong Kong Case Law

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS