Dominax273, et al. (Appellant) v SD (Respondent) 2025 SDCR 25

Dominax273, et al. (Appellant) v SD (Respondent) SDCR 25

Date of judgment	17th November 2025
Judges	Court of Review Judge Ferris Court of Review Judge Hmquestionable Court of Review Judge Brandmal
Held	The lower court’s decision is limited in scope but affirmed.
Ruling	3-0
Applicable precedent	Bills of particulars may be ordered, but only to clarify which torts the plaintiff alleges and in what way were fulfilled but only if doing so is necessary.

MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Brandmal

(with Judge Ferris and Judge Hmquestionable agreeing)

Introduction

[1] The appellant seeks review of a decision by the inferior court to require a bill of particulars. They argue that this is a tool used in criminal cases and that the Civil Code does not force them to limit themselves to one Right per count, even in the Case of Art. 32. The respondent disagrees, claiming that the text in Art. 32 §2. speaks of one, individualised Right, and therefore each Right violated has to be pursued as one tort and listed for each defendant.

Considerations of the Court

[2] The petition is successful in parts. When one tort offers several options to fulfil it, the plaintiff does not need to choose one option for one claim. When the plaintiff alleges harassment for example, they do not need to allege two torts, just because the defendant caused both alarm and distress. They also do not need to allege 2 torts of harassment, merely because the defendant made two statements, indeed forcing that would make it almost impossible to prove the necessary pattern of behaviour for each tort.

[3] However, the plaintiff still has to say which alternatives are fulfilled. Similarly, even if the action(s) done by the plaintiff violated 20 rights of the same person under Art. 32, they only have to say which rights were violated, but they may all be summarised under the same tort. This is long standing precedent (see only Aerospace Enjoyer v Lady Jess 2025 Civ 24) and not contradicted by Art. 18 §2., which refers to one action fitting many torts, not many actions culminating into one tort.

[4] This follows from the Right to a fair hearing, where the defendant ought to know what exactly they are alleged to have done. Therefore, staying with the Harassment example, while the plaintiff does not need to charge for two torts of harassment merely because the plaintiff caused both alarm and distress or because the defendant made two comments, they must make it clear which alternatives were allegedly committed. From this limit it is also apparent, that a bill of particulars may only be ordered when no sufficient clarity on the exact torts and content thereof exists. Such is the case here, which should have been remedied in pre-trial. As it wasn’t, it ought only be requested of the plaintiff if the defendant petitions for it. As the defendant did that here, the Court order is valid.

Verdict

[5] Hence, the order for a bill of particulars is legal, insofar as it forces the plaintiffs to say which rights they are referring to, but illegal if it were to force the plaintiff to divide their charges into as many different torts as Rights were violated.

Dicta

[6] The Court looks with worry on the sluggish speed of the trial. We recommend to Judge Terak to order and enforce strict time limits and refuse motions where appropriate and lawful.

Citations

<references />