DANISH corporation Aktieselskabet Dansk Skibsfinansiering must provide more information about the allegations of fraud against Wheelock Marden and Co, made in its bid to recover more than US$70 million in loans made to Wheelock Marden's subsidiaries now in liquidation. In a judgement handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the corporation must provide more details so that the company knew the case it had to meet. The bank is claiming the company is guilty of fraudulent trading, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy. The case arises from two loans made to subsidiaries of Wheelock Marden International (WMI) in 1983 and 1984 for two ships being built in Denmark which were guaranteed by WMI. In 1985, WMI, a subsidiary of Wheelock Marden, went into voluntary liquidation. The plaintiff alleges that Wheelock Marden was a shadow director of WMI and that the loans were negotiated, accepted and continued when the company knew WMI was insolvent. Other defendants in the case include Mr John Louis Marden, Mr William John Lees, Mr Lee Pei-chung, Mr Robert John Francis Brothers, Mr Leung Hon-wah, Mr David Andrew Hussey, Mr Charles Brian Murray Lloyd, Mr Yuen Chu-wing and Mr Anthony Louis Marden, all directors of WMI. Wheelock Marden said the bank had not complied with a court request in January last year to give more information. Mr Justice Jones rejected this contention, being satisfied that the information supplied was adequate and that the defendant knew the case it had to meet. The Court of Appeal, however, held that the plaintiff had to supply more information on some points. Where a plaintiff allegations fraud and misrepresentation, they must state the allegations relied on to support each ground clearly and distinctly, the court said. The court agreed with the defence that the claim of the plaintiff's lacked clarity was imprecise and unclear, but declined to order it to be re-drafted. However, they held that the allegations of fraud and misrepresentative were not sufficiently particularised and answers were given to the defendants which neither limited the plaintiff's case nor informed the defendants of the precise case they have to meet.