SMART TRIKE MNF. PTE. LTD AND ANOTHER v. FUNG KWOK HOI AND ANOTHER

SMART TRIKE MNF. PTE. LTD AND ANOTHER v. FUNG KWOK HOI AND ANOTHER

The 2nd Plaintiff was not entitled to judgment because the Plaintiffs had consistently asserted and the Defendants had accepted that the 1st Plaintiff was and was at all material times the owner of the relevant intellectual property; the Confirmatory Assignment was interpretated as confirmation of an earlier assignment rather than creating fresh locus after the writ. However, because joinder of the 2nd Plaintiff was reasonable to avoid technical challenges and the additional costs were minimal, the appropriate costs order between the 2nd Plaintiff and the Defendants is no order as to costs.

Citation
SMART TRIKE MNF. PTE. LTD AND ANOTHER v. FUNG KWOK HOI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: 1st Plaintiff; Plaintiff: 2nd Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2017
Case Number
HCA1989/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Intellectual Property Summary Judgment / Post Summary Judgment Application on Entitlement and Costs
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the 1st Plaintiff maintained; 2nd Plaintiff not granted judgment; costs between 2nd Plaintiff and Defendants: no order as to costs; costs nisi as to 1st Plaintiff made absolute.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Joinder, Costs Order, Locus Standi, Assignment, Confirmatory Assignment, Ownership of Copyright
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Copyright Trade Marks Design Rights Civil Procedure Costs Summary Judgment Joinder Costs Order +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st Plaintiff

Plaintiff

2nd Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Intellectual Property Summary Judgment / Post Summary Judgment Application on Entitlement and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Plaintiff should recover costs against the Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs can change their pleaded position after having asserted the 1st Plaintiff's ownership and having that acceptance in summary judgment proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd Plaintiff was not entitled to judgment because the Plaintiffs had consistently asserted and the Defendants had accepted that the 1st Plaintiff was and was at all material times the owner of the relevant intellectual property; the Confirmatory Assignment was interpretated as confirmation of an earlier assignment rather than creating fresh locus after the writ. However, because joinder of the 2nd Plaintiff was reasonable to avoid technical challenges and the additional costs were minimal, the appropriate costs order between the 2nd Plaintiff and the Defendants is no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the 1st Plaintiff maintained; 2nd Plaintiff not granted judgment; costs between 2nd Plaintiff and Defendants: no order as to costs; costs nisi as to 1st Plaintiff made absolute.

Orders

  • 2nd Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment against the Defendants
  • No order as to costs between the 2nd Plaintiff and the Defendants (including costs of the summary judgment application)