Pang Kim Guan v Lee Cheng Liam

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtFederal Court (Singapore)
JudgeChua F A J
Judgment Date08 August 1968
Neutral Citation[1968] SGFC 8
Citation[1968] SGFC 8
Defendant CounselTS Tan (Allen & Gledhill)
Plaintiff CounselTG Dunbar (Murphy & Dunbar)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No Y9 of 1968

The plaintiff (the appellant in this appeal) claimed damages against the defendant for personal injuries and loss suffered by him and caused by the negligence of the defendant in the driving of a motor vehicle.

In his statement of claim the plaintiff pleaded, inter alia,that:

On or about 3 December 1963 the plaintiff was lawfully on Jalan Besar, at or near its junction with Lorong Lalat in the Republic of Singapore when he was run into and knocked down by motor car No SK 4912 which was being driven by the defendant along Jalan Besar in the direction of Lavender Street.



The defendant applied by way of summons-in-chambers for an order that the plaintiff do serve on the defendant the following further and better particulars of the statement of claim, namely:

The point along Jalan Besar in relation to the left side thereof facing Lavender Street where the plaintiff was when he was run into and knocked down by motor car No SK 4912; whether the plaintiff was moving at the time of the collision and if so the direction in which he was moving.



The summons-in-chambers came before the learned Chief Justice who granted the defendant`s application.

The plaintiff now appeals against that order on the ground that the decision of the Chief Justice was wrong in law.

Now what is the function of particulars? In 30 Halsbury`s Laws of England p 18 para 37 the following passage appears:

The function of particulars is to limit the generality of the allegations in the pleadings, and thus to define the issues which have to be tried and as to which discovery must be given. Each party is entitled to know the case that is intended to be made against him at the trial and to have such particulars of his opponent`s case as will prevent him from being taken by surprise; but a party is not entitled to an order for particulars for the purpose of ascertaining the evidence upon which his opponent proposes to prove his case, nor is it the function of particulars to fill gaps in a statement of claim from which a material statement has been omitted.



In para 38 at p 19 the following passage appears:

No precise rule can be laid down as to the degree of particularity required in any given case, but as much certainty and particularity is insisted on as is reasonable having regard to the circumstances and nature of the acts alleged.



We are of the view that, subject to one observation which will be made hereafter, the law is correctly stated by Choor Singh J in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT