Teh Hong Eng Investments Holdings Limited & Anor v Kropz Plc & Ors

An application for further information should be determined by the order that is just and best promotes the overriding objective. The court may grant it in part, even where the request is excessive, if particular deficiencies prevent a defendant from understanding and pleading to the case.

Serious allegations of deceit, dishonesty, bribery, unlawful conduct and conspiracy require basic particulars. These include the acts alleged, the individuals whose knowledge or state of mind is attributed to a company, the basis of attribution, and essential matters such as falsity and knowledge of falsity. An inferential case must identify the inference relied upon. Causation, loss and damage must be particularised to the best of the claimant’s present ability.

The claimants brought commercial claims against Kropz Plc, Cominco Resources Limited and an individual defendant. The pleaded case included procurement of breach of rights of first refusal, deceit, bribery, threats of unlawful conduct, conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, and claims for causation, loss and damage.

The first and second defendants applied for further information before serving their defences. Their request dated 19 March 2025 contained 41 requests, although Requests 21 and 22 were not pursued. The central issue was which requests were necessary to make the claimants’ case sufficiently clear and confined for the defendants to plead to it.

Application granted in part. The judge held that the court’s task was to make the order that was just and would best promote the overriding objective. The fact that a request for further information was misjudged or excessive did not require wholesale dismissal. The court could require answers to necessary requests while refusing the rest.

1. A request is justified where the pleading leaves the defendant unable to understand the case or plead back to it. A properly pleaded headline allegation does not require further information merely because it is serious, if the particulars adequately identify the case. Requests 1–8 and Requests 23–25 were therefore refused, while Requests 21 and 22 were not pursued.
2. Answers were required where the alleged timing and terms of prior sale notices were not stated; where the knowledge, intention, dishonesty or conduct of a company was alleged without identifying the natural person or persons and basis of attribution; and where threats of unlawful conduct were said to be inferred without identifying the unlawful acts. Similar clarification was required for allegations that all or some shareholders acted in a particular way, including whether the case was primary, alternative or inferential.
3. The pleading that defendants acted by themselves or through agents was materially unclear, particularly because two defendants were companies and one was an individual. Request 28 therefore had to be answered. The allegation of a criminal offence contrary to section 17 of the Theft Act lacked particulars of falsity and knowledge of falsity, so Requests 26 and 27 had to be answered. The bribery allegation also required the basis for attributing individual acts to the first defendant and clarification of any case against other directors.
4. The existing pleading on causation, loss and damage was wholly inadequate. Rather than dissect Requests 30–41, the claimants were ordered to give the best particulars presently available. If the essence of those requests was addressed, any residual dispute should not delay service of the defences and should ordinarily be resolved without another application.
5. The claimants were to pay the first and second defendants £52,500, being 70% of the £75,000 summarily assessed recoverable costs of and occasioned by the application. Otherwise there was no order as to those costs. The third defendant’s attendance remained costs in the case.