1998/228 - Corella and Ors v Lewin and Ors [1998] UR 228 (18 November 1998)

1998/228 - Corella and Ors v Lewin and Ors [1998] UR 228 (18 November 1998)

The Court held that requests seeking disclosure of evidence rather than necessary particulars are improper and should be refused, but where the request seeks clarification of the pleaded case and is necessary for procedural clarity, it should be granted. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in respect of Requests 4 and 12, but allowed in respect of Requests 8 and 36.

Citation
[1998] UR 228
Parties
Plaintiffs: S&J Properties and others; Defendants: Mr Harris, Mr Lewin, Corella Limited, Cebadale, Goldsphere, Ashmill BTB
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Greffier Substitute's Procedural Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Requests for Particulars, Pleadings, Disclosure, Procedural Appeals
Civil Procedure Requests for Particulars Pleadings Disclosure Procedural Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S&J Properties and others

Plaintiffs

Mr Harris, Mr Lewin, Corella Limited, Cebadale, Goldsphere, Ashmill BTB

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Greffier Substitute's Procedural Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Greffier Substitute erred in refusing four requests for particulars or a better statement of the defendants' case
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to further and better particulars in respect of certain allegations and denials

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that requests seeking disclosure of evidence rather than necessary particulars are improper and should be refused, but where the request seeks clarification of the pleaded case and is necessary for procedural clarity, it should be granted. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in respect of Requests 4 and 12, but allowed in respect of Requests 8 and 36.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in respect of Requests 4 and 12
  • Appeal allowed in respect of Requests 8 and 36