PMS INTERNATIONAL FAR EAST LTD. v. CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) LTD.
HTML content
HCA019191/1998
HCA19191/1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO.19191 OF 1998
--------------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| PMS INTERNATIONAL FAR EAST LIMITED | Plaintiff | |
| AND | ||
| CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) LIMITED | Defendant |
--------------------
Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 31 May 2001
Date of Judgment: 31 May 2001
----------------------
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
1. I have before me an appeal by the defendant against the refusal of the master to order with further particulars pursuant to the defendant's request against the plaintiff in relation to two paragraphs of the plaintiff's Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, namely paragraphs 4 and 5. The appeal is now brought by the defendant on the basis that the master ought to have ordered the particulars. Even a cursory look at the pleadings and a reading in particular of paragraphs 4 and 5, would reveal clearly the reasonableness and the necessity for the request. I have no doubt that the request has been properly made and that full particulars should be given.
2. A number of reasons have been advanced by Miss Chu in a somewhat immature submission that in the circumstances of this case, the particulars should not be ordered. It was said that the defendant was not entitled to the particulars because they knew or should to have known the plaintiff's case. I do not agree. I do not think that the defendant knew or should have known but in any event, the defendant is entitled to tie the plaintiff's hands down to a particular case and also to know the full nature of the case so that they can be properly prepared for it.
3. It is also said that the request was ambiguous. I do not see anything ambiguous about the request. Some time was spent about the nature of the request under paragraph 5. It seems to me that there is nothing ambiguous about the request. Again, therefore, there is nothing in the point.
4. There are some other subsidiary meritless submissions made as to why the plaintiff should not be ordered to give particulars. None of it, I regret to say, has got any merit. I think the master was wholly wrong in refusing to order particulars and I think the particulars should be given as requested. I would make an order that the particulars be given within 21 days. The defendant is entitled to the costs of the application below and of the appeal. I will hear the parties now as to the quantum of costs by way of gross sum assessment under Order 62, rule 9(4)(b).
| (William Waung) | |
| Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court |
Representation:
Miss D. Chu of Messrs Skrine Thomas Sharrock, for the Plaintiff
Mr G.S. Wong of Messrs Sinclair Roche & Temperley, for the Defendant