Facts

The plaintiff entered into 16 similar sale and purchase agreements ('the SPAs') with the first defendant whereby the plaintiff purchased 16 office lots in a building owned by the first defendant. The said 16 SPAs contain, inter alia, similar relevant clauses which are as follows:

Section 1.01(m):

'Service charges' which may be imposed by the defendants for the services provided by the defendants for the management, upkeep and maintenance of the building including the plaintiff's 16 office lots and 'service charges' include costs of electric power and water supply.

Section 5.01(a):

Provides that the plaintiff shall upon the defendants' demand pay to the defendants the quit rent and assessment on the plaintiff's 16 office lots.

Section 5.01(b)(1):

Provides that the plaintiff shall be liable to pay the defendants for the service charges for the maintenance and management of 'the common property' as defined in clause 1.01(1).

Section 5.01(b)(2):

Provides that the plaintiff shall pay service charges and a contribution to 'the sinking fund' at the rates specified in section 6(a) and (b) of Schedule A to the SPAs.

Sections 4.05 and 10.13:

Provide that time shall be of the essence in relation to all provisions in the SPAs.

Section 5.07(ii) and (iii):

Provide that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendants all water and electricity charges.

Section 5.01(b)(3) and 10.01:

Provide that the defendants may impose interest on any late payments of any sum due to the defendants under the SPAs.

Section 5.01(b)(4):

Provided that the defendants are entitled to 'withdraw' or suspend any services, utilities, amenities or facilities in the event of plaintiff's default in payment of any sum due to the defendants under the SPAs.

The first defendant appointed the second defendant to manage the said building and to collect all payments due to the first defendant under the SPAs.

The plaintiff's claim by way of originating summons (OS)

The plaintiff's applications were basically for:

(a) a declaration that all the water and electricity meters in respect of the plaintiff's office lots belonged to the government and that no person including the defendants should be entitled to stop or interfere with the water and electricity supply;

(b) an injunction to restrain the defendants from disconnecting the water and electricity supply to the plaintiff's office lots;

(c) declarations that the plaintiff is not bound by section 5.01(b)(4) of the SPAs and that the defendants' action in stopping the water and electricity supply to the plaintiff's 16 office lots was unlawful;

(d) a declaration that the service charges imposed by the defendants are too high and had exceeded the actual maintenance costs;

(e) a declaration that the defendants are trustees in respect of the service charges paid by the plaintiff and that the defendants are obliged to provide details of accounts in respect of the use of the service charges and a financial report every six months;

(f) a declaration that the threats and/or action of the defendants to stop the lift services are contrary to the subsidiary legislation of the local authorities.

Application to convert the OS to writ action (encl 41)

Although the notice of appeal states that the defendants are appealing against my decision given on 13 July 1999, I had in fact given two decisions on 13 July 1999 in respect of two enclosures, namely encl 38 and encl 41. Enclosure 38

This was an application by the defendants to strike out one of the affidavits affirmed by the plaintiff's representative. On the morning of 13 July 1999 Mr KK Wong for the defendants applied to withdraw encl 38 with no order as to costs and without prejudice to the defendants' right to object to the admissibility of the evidence, which was the subject of encl 38. Mr Menon for the plaintiff objected to the conditions laid out. He contended that if an application was to be withdrawn that was the end of the matter.

Since I do not know which enclosure