FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS (FPB)

An FBP Application is moved under Order 18, Rule 12(3) of the Rules of Court 2012:

(3) The Court may order a party to serve on any other party particulars of any claim,
defence or other matter stated in his pleading, or in any affidavit of his to stand as a
pleading, or a statement of the nature of the case on which he relies, and the order
may be made on such terms as the Court thinks just.

PROCEDURES FOR FPB APPLICATION

1. Order 18, Rule 12(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 necessitates that a party that seeks
the Court’s assistance for an FBP Application must have first applied for the particulars
needed via a letter to the Opponent first before making a formal application in
Court.

 The Notice of Application and accompanying Affidavit in Support shall list

out the Particulars sought, and this must be done specifically with reference to
the relevant paragraphs in the Pleading.

2. Order 18, Rule 12(7) of the Rules of Court 2012: The particulars requested or
ordered and supplied shall be served in accordance with Form 31.

 The request is a formal document and should be formatted in the same way as
a pleading, with each request set out and numbered serially.

 The format of the pleadings is to be set out in accordance with Form 31 where
the request and particulars supplied in response will be married together in a
single document and form part of the bundle of pleadings, together with the
request and any order for particulars.
 OBJECTIVES OF FPB APPLICATION

1. In the case of Batcha Ammal v Ponnachi [1965] 2 MLJ 43, the court held that:
“the object (of further and better particulars) is to ensure that a defendant is informed
with reasonable particularity as to the various matters which are alleged against him.”

2. In the case of Ikram Megah Sdn Bhd v Pantiga Resources Sdn Bhd & Ors [2010]
7 MLJ 131, the court said that:

“[9] The legal principles governing further and better particulars were concisely stated
in the case of Dato' Seri Dr Ling Liong Sik v Krishna Kumar Sivasubramaniam
[2002] 2 MLJ 278; [2002] 2 CLJ 642, which, inter alia, held:
At the out set it is necessary to state the functions of particulars. This is
comprehensively set out in the Supreme Court Practice, 1997, Vol 1, p 308 which
reads:
The function of particulars is accordingly:
(a) to inform the other side of the nature of the case that they have to meet as
distinguished from the mode in which that case is to be proved;
(b) to prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at the trial;
(c) to enable the other side to know with what evidence they ought to be prepared and
to prepare for trial;
(d) to limit the generality of the pleadings or of the claim or the evidence;
(e) to limit and define the issues to be tried, and as to which discovery is required;
(f) to tie the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go into any matters not
included. But if the opponent omits to ask for particulars, evidence may be given which
supports any material allegation in the pleadings.”