Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 1697

HIGH COURT MALAYA KOTA BHARU
TUAN KHAIRUL ANNUAR TUAN YUSUF – Appellant
Versus
AZAHAR MOHD SHARIFF & ORS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Alvin Dev Singh Soraya Ong,Aiman Danial Pelatih,Dalam Kamar,MOB ,Respondent Advocate: Hasnal Rezua Merican,Muzzammil Merican

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) (!) : Law on O 18 r 12(3) ROC 2012; discretionary power to order particulars. - (!) - (!) : Principles from Ling Liong Sik v Krishna Kumar; purposes of particulars (informing opponent, preventing surprise, guiding evidence, limiting pleadings). - (!) - (!) : Plaintiff's contention that misappropriation/breach of trust require particulars; Defence lacking particulars. - (!) - (!) : Parties bound by pleadings; pleadings define the case and to be disclosed; no trial ambush. - (!) - (!) : Distinction between facts (particulars) and evidence. - (!) : Trial must involve full and frank disclosure; no trial by ambush. - (!) - (!) : Court's stance on distinction between evidence and particulars; discovery/interrogatories as tools to check authenticity and prepare; applicability to avoid surprise. - (!) : Conclusion.

Question 1?

What is the scope and necessity of providing further and better particulars under Order 18 Rule 12 ROC 2012?

Question 2?

What distinguishes particulars from evidence, and how should Courts treat requests for particulars versus seeking evidence?

Question 3?

What are the consequences for a party bound by its pleadings in relation to disclosing material facts and avoiding trial ambush?

Table of Content
1. application for further particulars in defense. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. law on further and better particulars. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. plaintiff's need for particulars due to serious allegations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. parties bound by their pleadings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. distinction between particulars and evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application by Plaintiff vide E 55 pursuant to O 18 Rule 12 Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC 2012) for an order that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Defendants to serve to the Plaintiff further and better particulars on their Defence dated 3 February 2020 in accordance with the request served on the said Defendants by way of the Plaintiff's solicitor dated 19 October 2020 annexed as Annexure A.

[2] In general, in Annexure A, it can be divided into 2 parts. The first part is in regards to para 3 which involved alleged misappropriation, breach of trust and wrongdoings. While the second part is in regards to paragraph 6 which involved alleged tenancy. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff informed this Court that due to the amendment of Defence, the second part of the Annexure A is no lo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document