Back
2011 MarsdenLR 4328
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM
SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI – Appellant
Versus
DATO TAN MONG SING – Respondent
The court holds that a party requesting particulars must demonstrate the necessity of such for fair trial preparation, exercising discretion to deny excessive requests that do not clarify the case.
Headnote:(A) High Court Rules - Order 18 r. 12(3) - Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant for better particulars of Statement of Claim involving allegations of unlawful conduct, conspiracy, stock market manipulation, and fraud - Detailed information requested includes sources of knowledge and particulars of agreements and decisions made by various parties. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Particulars - Court's discretion on requirement of particulars - Purpose includes informing parties, preventing surprise, enabling trial preparation, and defining issues - Adequacy of provided documents assessed against these principles. (Paras 2-5)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff filed a claim against the 9th Defendant to clarify particulars regarding investment conduct, allegedly unlawful actions without license, and conspiracies related to market manipulation from 13.3.2006 to 11.5.2006. The Plaintiff provided various documents and defended their adequacy against the Defendant's request for further particulars.
Findings of Court:
The Court concludes that the particulars requested are either non-essential or sufficiently covered by the provided documents, thus denying the application and ordering costs against the 9th Defendant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the provided documents were adequate for trial preparation, given the Defendant's request for specific details on the Plaintiff's claims and supporting information.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court finds the documentation and details already provided to be sufficient for fair trial preparation, emphasizing the Court's discretionary power regarding particulars. The request for further details is dismissed, as the need for those particulars does not arise from deficiencies in the Plaintiff's submissions.
Result: Enclosure 42 is dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of unlawful conduct and conspiracy. (Para 2) |
| 2. request for further particulars by the 9th defendant. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. considerations of adequacy of provided particulars. (Para 5 , 6) |
Enclosure 42 is the application of the 9th Defendant for the following:
1. that the Plaintiff serve on the 9th Defendant within 14 days from the date of the Order for further and better particulars in writing of the Statement of Claim herein, stating:
(a) Under paragraph 5:
Of the allegation that "To the knowledge of SC, all market/investment information obtained from Aeneas offices in London, Mumbai and Hong Kong, including information from Europe and East Asia, would be channeled to Grossman".
(i) Identify the source of the said knowledge;
(ii) If the source is oral, identify the person(s) who provided the said information;
(iii) If the source is documentary, please identify the document/documents relief upon;
(iv) If the source is partly oral and partly documentary, please identify which parts are oral, which parts are documentary and identify the person(s) who provided the said information or document(s) relied upon.
Of the allegation that "Grossman would issue instructions to Aeneas offices and investment traders to execute the trades."
(i) Identify the source of the said knowledge;
(ii) If the source is oral, identify the person(s) who provided the said information;
(iii) If the source is documentary, identify the document/document (s) relied upon;
(iv) If the source is partly oral and partly documentary, identify which parts are oral, which parts are documentary and identify the person(s) who provided the said information or document(s) relied upon;
(v) Identify to whom the instructions were alleged to have been given by Grossman, and by what method, orally or in writing.
(b) Under paragraph 12:
Of the allegation that to the knowledge of the SC, Tan was the representative of Acadian in Malaysia and its moving spirit, dominant personality and alter ego.
(i) Identify the source of SCs alleged knowledge that Tan was the representative of Acadian in Malaysia;
(ii) Identify the source of SCs alleged knowledge that Tan was the moving spirit, dominant personality and alter ego of Acadian;
(iii) If the source is oral, please identify the person(s) who provided the said information;
(iv) If the source is documentary, please identify the document or documents relied upon;
(v) If the source is partly oral and partly documentary, please identify which parts are oral, which parts are documentary and identify the person(s) who provided the said information or document(s) relied upon.
(c) Under paragraph 27(i):
Of the allegation that "Acadian entered into an investment management agreement with Priam whereby, Acadian is responsible for the investment of the assets of Priam."
(i) Identify and provide particulars of the investment management agreement between Acadian and Priam whereby, Acadian is responsible for the investment of the assets of Priam.
(d) Under paragraph 27(ii):
Of the allegation that "Acadian has entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Aeneas whereby Aeneas would provide fundamental research and execution services to Acadian and/or Tan."
(i) Identify and provide particulars of the sub-advisory agreement between Acadian and Aeneas whereby Aeneas would provide fundamental research and execution services to Acadian and/or Tan.
(e) Under paragraph 27(iii):
Of the allegation that "Acadian and/or Tan and/or Low make the investment decisions for Priam."
(i) Identify which investment decisions are alleged to have been made by Tan for Priam.
(f) Under paragraph 28(b):
Of the allegation that Priam and Aeneas and/or Grossman, Suglia, Cohen and/or Tan claimed and/or represented that "Acadian and/or Tan makes the decision on which equities fit the correct profile".
(i) Identify the source of SCs contention that Priam and Aeneas and/or Grossman, Suglia, Cohen and/or Tan claimed and/or represented that Ac
