LCL PRISES LTD
High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Lungole- Awich, J
Civil Case No. 138 of 1995
Hearing: 27/3/1997
Counsel: J Katahanas for the plaintiff;
C Ashley for the Defendant
class="Sty="Style1" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT
(LUNGOLE- AWICH, J):
Learned Counsel Mr. Kaas on behalf of the plaintiffs has made useful
detailetailed submission in support of the plaintiffs'
application to obtain
further and better particulars of the defence and counter claim of the first
defendant. He explained
in details why the plaintiffs require the further
particulars. I have considered the explanation one by one. In determining
whether requested further particulars are necessary and may be compelled,
the court must not lose sight of the claim,
counter claim or the defence. In
this case, the claim as amended, is for $2,345.23, said to be for services
rendered
by the plaintiffs and associated charges and disbursements. The
defence is that the first defendant has paid in full for the
services and
associated charges and disbursements, to the extent rendered and incurred.
The counter claim is that the
second defendant deposited with the
plaintiffs, the sum of $14,260 for incorporating a company and other
professional
services. The services were not rendered to conclusion by the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have charged $4,620 and so there is
a balance of
$9,640 to be returned to the second defendant. He also counter- claimed for
damages arising from incompletion
of the services.
The purpose of pleading, for which further particulars
may be requested and obtained, is to inform the other party and the court
of
what one intends to prove either to establish the claim or defence.
Pleadings are brief statements of facts not of
the evidence. That is the
requirement stated in Order 21 rule 4. It follows therefore that pleadings
are not statements
outlining the evidence that one intends to adduce,
although if one relies on document, the document must be produced if
requested. They are not detailed account of the events of the case. In my
experience verbous and over detailed pleadings
tend to stray into evidence,
an unnecessary aspect of a case at that stage. Order 21 rules 4, 5 and 6 are
intended to
ensure that pleadings contain only statements in, "summary form
of the material facts". Instances where more details
are required than
usually necessary are given in rule 6. The instant claim is not one such
case.
Bearing the above in mind I have decided as follows:
Request 1
/p>
lassclass="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Requests 1 a), b) and c) properly seek further
clarification of tcts about the payment pleaded as having been made by
the first defendant. He has adequately answered by supplying dates of
payments, mode and amounts. Request 1 d) is unnecessary
as the relevant
facts are already included in 1 a), b) and c). Order to compel is refused.
class="Sty="Style1" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Request 2
The request is a proper one. The r given is
irrelevant; it is about the account into which payment was made, not the
the
account on which the first defendant's cheques were drawn, which is the
further fact requested. The first defendant is
ordered to supply the further
particulars in 14 days.
Requests 3, 4, 5 and 6
Requests 3, 4, 5 and 6 do nise in view of answer at
1 supplying the facts. Facts beyond those given by the firstfirst defendant
at 1
will be about evidence and so the defendant is entitled to refuse to supply.
In any case the defendant's answer
at 3 is adequate. Order to compel on
requests 3, 4, 5 and 6 is refused.
Request 7
The requests 7 a), b), c), d) and e) are improper in as
far as they seek the actual evidence other than statement of facts intended
to be proved. In any case the answers of the defendant, supplying facts at 7
a), b), c), d) and e) are sufficient. Order
to compel is refused.
Request 8
The requests at 8 a), b), c), d)and e) are imr. They
are based on assumptions by the plaintiffs. In any case they do not arise
in e in
view of answers of the defendant at 7, supplying facts.
Request 9
ass="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The opening paragraph is irrelevant. Theter- claim
of the defendant is not based on the services alleged to have been performrformed
by the plaintiffs. In any case it will be unto the plaintiffs to adduce
evidence if it is their counter- defence that
they have performed the
services. The defendant at paragraph 8 has supplied the necessary fact of
non performance, being
failure to incorporate a company.
Request 9 e) and c) have been ately answered at
answer paragraph 9 b).
Request 10
Request 10 is unnecessary. The facts are available in the
facts supplied by the defendants at 7. Moreover 10 e) is a request
for
evidence.
p class="Sty="Style1" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Request 11
Requests at 11 a) and b) are unnecessary in view of the
fsupplied by the defendant at 7. The questions were based oned on assumption
by the plaintiffs.
class="Sty="Style1" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Request 12
The question is proper. The plaintiffs are entitled to a
statement of what constitute the es said to have been sufferuffered
as the
result of non performance, for instance when the plaintiffs failed to
incorporate a company. The first defendant
is ordered to supply the facts in
14 days.
The plaintiffs have succeeded only in 2 requests out of
30. They are to pay of this interlocutory application to the extent
of
2 28/30.
p class="Sty="Style1" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Dated this 12th day of April 1997
At the High Court
Honiara
Sam Lungole- Awich
JUDGE
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1997/20.html
