LIAO FU PIN AND ANOTHER v. AD-MAGNETICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

LIAO FU PIN AND ANOTHER v. AD-MAGNETICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The Court held the proposed amendments were arguable and should be allowed subject to a clarification that paragraph 6(a) alleges reproduction only by the 1st Defendant; the changes did not constitute an improper withdrawal of admission; pleas about issuing to the public and authorization and of the 2nd Defendant's knowledge were sufficiently pleaded on the available circumstantial evidence and inferences and could be explored by discovery; appeal otherwise dismissed and costs awarded to Plaintiffs.

Citation
LIAO FU PIN AND ANOTHER v. AD-MAGNETICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs; 1st Defendant: COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as AD-MAGNETICS CONSULTANTS CO. LTD.); 2nd Defendant: TAI LIN RADIO SERVICE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2008
Case Number
HCA1778/2006
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement / Appeal Against Master's Order Granting Leave to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except insofar as it sought to set aside the Master's order; Master J Wong's grant of leave to amend is upheld subject to a clarification
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Secondary Infringement, Licensing Agreements, Particulars and Pleading Sufficiency, Statutory Definitions Under Copyright Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Copyright Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Secondary Infringement Licensing Agreements Particulars and Pleading Sufficiency Statutory Definitions Under Copyright Ordinance

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as AD-MAGNETICS CONSULTANTS CO. LTD.)

1st Defendant

TAI LIN RADIO SERVICE LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement / Appeal Against Master's Order Granting Leave to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendments to the Statement of Claim (paras 5,6,7,9) should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether the amendment improperly withdraws an admission or restricts scope of pleaded licence
  3. 3 Whether the pleading gives sufficient particulars of primary and secondary infringement (issuing to the public and authorization)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the proposed amendments were arguable and should be allowed subject to a clarification that paragraph 6(a) alleges reproduction only by the 1st Defendant; the changes did not constitute an improper withdrawal of admission; pleas about issuing to the public and authorization and of the 2nd Defendant's knowledge were sufficiently pleaded on the available circumstantial evidence and inferences and could be explored by discovery; appeal otherwise dismissed and costs awarded to Plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except insofar as it sought to set aside the Master's order; Master J Wong's grant of leave to amend is upheld subject to a clarification

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Master's order of 14 March 2008 granting leave to the Plaintiffs to amend the Statement of Claim is upheld subject to the Plaintiffs stating explicitly that the allegation in paragraph 6(a) is directed only against the 1st Defendant