IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
Action No. A5370/1993
AND 1995, No CL-98
1995, No CL-98
Coram : Hon Mr Justice Findlay (in Chambers)
Date of hearing : 1 February 1996
Date of handing down of judgment : 5 February 1996
J U D G M E N T
1. On 13 December 1995, the plaintiff served upon the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants in the first action and the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendantsin the second action (the defendants) requests for further particulars. The defendants did not respond to this. On 22 December 1995,the plaintiff issued a summons seeking an order to compel the defendants to supply the particulars.
2. In Case A5370 of 1993, the particulars requested are as follows –
3. Regarding request 1, Mr Lam assures me, and the plaintiff, that what the defendants meant to allege was that what was alleged bythe plaintiff to be the consideration was the consideration, without more, and that it was denied that this was inadequate.
4. As to request 2, the defence does not make it clear whether it is admitted that the director did not receive notice, but the meetingfor properly convened for reasons not pleaded, or that it is denied that the director did not receive notice. This should be madeclear by particulars.
5. Mr Lam agrees that the defendants should supply particulars of the “material times” as requested in request 8.
6. Regarding request 10, the allegation made is a very strange one. If there was a resolution of shareholders, one would have expectedthat to be pleaded. Apparently, the total, unreserved support and approval was given in some other way. I think the plaintiff isentitled to have more particulars of this odd plea.
7. In relation to Case CL-98 of 1995, the particulars requested are –
8. Request 1 asks for particulars about the defendants allegation that, even if the effect and purpose alleged, it did not follow thatthe agreement was liable to rescinded or otherwise challenged. Mr Lam says that paragraph 11 of the defence is meant to allege thatit does not follow because the agreement supported and approved by the shareholders. This should have been made clear in the pleading.
9. Otherwise, there is nothing new here. What I have said earlier applies equally to this case.
10. The defendants are to supply the particulars as I have indicated within 14 days. The parts of the defence I have identified are struckout.
11. There seems no reason why the defendants should not pay the plaintiff’s costs in any event. I make an order nisi accordingly.
Judge of the High Court
Mr Martin Rogers, of Messrs Herbert Smith, for the plaintiffs.
Mr S.C. Lam, instructed by Messrs Wong Poon Chan Law, for the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants in 1993, No A5370 and 1st, 2nd and 5th defendantsin 1995, No CL-98