This is an application for judgment on admissions. The plaintiff, Carabao Exports Pty Ltd, entered into a contract for the sale of cattle. The buyer (or one of the buyers) was one Hj Mohamad bin Hj Bakar, ('Hj Mohamad') who is named as the third defendant in the action and who trades as sole proprietor of Sharikat Termaju Abadi ('STA'), which is named as the second defendant in the action. STA is sued as a firm but the name of a person who is a party in more than one capacity must be inserted only once on the record: see the note in The Supreme Court Practice 1988, 15/1/4. Since the second and third defendants are the same person, the second defendant ought to be deleted and the third defendant should become the second defendant. He should be described in the statement of claim as trading under the style of 'Sharikat Termaju Abadi'.

The plaintiff has already obtained judgment against the first defendants and suggests that in those circumstances, the court should treat Hj Mohamad as having admitted the plaintiff's claim. The reason given by the plaintiff for this startling submission is that Hj Mohamad was in partnership with the first defendants, but the plaintiff accepts that that allegation is not admitted or accepted by Hj Mohamad. The court cannot try on this interlocutory application the question of partnership or no partnership, and it is impossible for the court to give judgment on the alleged admission based on this ground. I have seen nothing in the pleadings in this action nor anywhere else which amounts to 'a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making it to succeed': see Ellis v Allen [1914] 1 Ch 904 per Sargant J at p 909. The alternative ground on which the plaintiff seeks judgment on admissions arises as follows.

The plaintiff says that the buyers jumped the gun by obtaining premature delivery of the cattle, the subject of the contract of sale, from the shipping agents. They did not tender the shipping documents to the shipping agents but nevertheless got hold of the cattle. In those circumstances, says the plaintiff, there was a conversion of the cattle by Hj Mohamad because he was one of those who collected these cattle from the shipping agents without tendering the shipping documents.

The admission here relied on, in relation to the cattle, consists of an indemnity given by Hj Mohamad to the shipping agents. There are two instruments, one showing delivery on 27 July 1987 which applies to some of the cattle and one showing delivery on 4 August 1987 which relates to the remainder. I am prepared, for the purposes of this application, to treat these instruments as evidencing receipt by the consignee, whose signature appears thereon, of the cattle in question; but in no way, as it seems to me, do these instruments constitute the sort of admission on which a judgment on admissions can be obtained.

For this purpose, the admission must be a clear admission of all, and not simply evidence of some, of the facts upon which the plaintiff would have to rely to establish his cause of action. There is no such admission. In these circumstances, I propose to dismiss this application.