Back
2012 MarsdenLR 818
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LEMBAGA PELABUHAN KELANG – Appellant
Versus
MEGA-WAN CORPORATE SERVICES SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(IM)-446-2010]
A party may request further particulars of relevant facts in pleadings to ensure a fair trial, but not evidence; this distinction is crucial to avoid surprise during trial.
Headnote:(A) Order 18 r 12(3) of the Rules of the High Court 1980; Skrine & Co v. MBF Capital Bhd; Tan Hoe Kock & Anor v. Ali Akarbara Mangudin; Johnson Pacific Pte Ltd v. Hogberg Fred Rickard Robin William - Appeal against High Court's order for further and better particulars of defendant's Statement of Defence - The principles of pleading established that a party may request particulars of relevant facts but not evidence - The court emphasized that providing particulars is essential for fair trial and prevents surprise at trial (Paras 7, 10).
(B) The need for clarity in pleadings is crucial to ensure a just and fair trial process (Paras 8, 9, 12).
(C) A party is not entitled to evidence through particulars but must have sufficient information to respond to the opposing party's claims (Paras 30, 31).
Facts of the case:
The defendant denied the plaintiff's allegations regarding the Letter of Appointment and requested further particulars in its Statement of Defence which the plaintiff sought to clarify through an application, arguing that such requests are necessary to prevent a surprise during trial.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the learned judge did not err in ordering the defendant to furnish further particulars and emphasized the importance of full disclosure for a fair trial.
Issues: The core issues include whether requested particulars constitute evidence and how they relate to the efficiency of judicial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that requesting further particulars does not equate to requesting evidence, established that defendants must provide particular details necessary for the plaintiff to verify the assertions made in the defence, and noted the obligation to provide a transparent basis for claims being challenged.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement to further particulars in legal pleadings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. history of the pleadings and requests for particulars. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. clarifications on evidence versus particulars in civil procedure. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. judicial guidelines on further particulars and evidence. (Para 16 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. ensuring fair decision-making in trials. (Para 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. conclusion of the appeal on the orders of particulars. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
Introduction
[1] The appellant/defendant Lembaga Pelabuhan Kelang ("the defendant") appealed against the decision of the High Court which allowed the application of the respondent/plaintiff Mega-Wan Corporate Services Sdn Bhd ("the plaintiff ") for further and better particulars in respect of some of the paragraphs in the Statement of Defence.
[2] Before us, it was submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to the further and better particulars of the defendant's Statement of Defence as the matters requested for are not particulars but evidence which is to be adduced only at the trial. It was submitted that the plaintiff is attempting to shift the burden of proof on to the defendant by requesting the defendant to show evidence to disprove the plaintiff 's claim, thereby reversing the basic and trite principles of proof.
Background
[3] In its Statement of Defence of 15 July 2009, the defendant had:
(a) pleaded that the scope and terms of appointment of the plaintiff were not set out in the alleged Letter of Appointment and as such the said alleged Letter of Appointment is of no legal effect or alternatively the said Letter of Appointment is void for uncertainty;(b) denied that the alleged services were provided by the plaintiff; and(c) stated that all the matters pertaining to the PKFZ Project were attended to by the defendant.
[4] Pursuant to O 18 r 12(3) of the Rules of the High 1980, the solicitors for the plaintiff requested, on 14 January 2010, further and better particulars in respect of paras 3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 20 and 21 of Statement of Defence. The request for further and better particulars in respect of para 3 and the first request in respect of para 10 were subsequently withdrawn.
[5] The solicitors for the defendant replied by a letter dated 28 January 2010.
[6] Not satisfied with the response from the defendant, the plaintiff filed the application under O 18 r 12(3) by way of a Summons in Chambers on 11 March 2010.
The Law
[7] Order 18 r 12(3) provides that the Court may order a party to serve particulars of any pleadings on such terms as it thinks just. In Skrine & Co v. MBF Capital Bhd & Anor & Other Appeals, , it was held that "A litigant is entitled to have particulars of facts relevant to the issues arising in order to prevent surprise but he is not entitled to have his opponent's evidence. "
[8] The distinction between facts, particular of facts, evidence and nature of evidence bears some scrutiny.
[9] The exclusion of evidence from the pleadings is to keep the pleadings concise and succinct as to the cause of action and the facts relied upon. However, not all facts are direct facts. Some facts are conclusions or inferences of a fact drawn from other facts. In such a case, particulars of the facts relied upon therefore are required to be provided. If particulars are not provided, the trial Court has the discretion under O 18 r 12(3) to order a party to serve further and better particulars of any pleadings on such terms as it thinks just. As the Court having conduct of the case, the trial Court views the pleadings from the perspective of what is needed in order to enable it not only to be able to understand the case, but also to make a fair and just decision.
[10] Making a fair and just decision is not simply a ritual of pleadings, case management and trial, where facts and evidence, oral and documentary are produced at trial and submissions heard before the Court delivers its decision. If con
