WAL-MART STORES INC AND ANOTHER v. WAL-MART INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

WAL-MART STORES INC AND ANOTHER v. WAL-MART INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Defendants did not seek an extension nor provide evidence to justify indulgence, the late fax did not comply with the court order, and the defences disclosed no arguable defence; therefore the court dismissed the defendants' application to deem service and granted the plaintiffs' orders in the form sought, including costs.

Citation
WAL-MART STORES INC AND ANOTHER v. WAL-MART INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: WAL-MART STORES INC.; 2nd Plaintiff: WAL-MART CHINA COMPANY LTD; 1st Defendant (hca1285): WAL-MART PRODUCTION LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca1288): WAL-MART INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: LEUNG KA KIT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 October 2008
Case Number
HCA1288/2008
Procedural Posture
Passing Off Action / Interlocutory Applications (application for Default Judgment and Application to Deem Late Service) Heard in Chambers
Outcome
Applications by the Plaintiffs for relief in the form sought were allowed; Defendants' applications to deem the late service/filing of defences were dismissed; Plaintiffs awarded costs on both summonses.
Legal Topics
Goodwill, Default Judgment, Service and Filing of Defence, Extension of Time, Costs
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Passing Off Civil Procedure Goodwill Default Judgment Service and Filing of Defence Extension of Time Costs

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAL-MART STORES INC.

1st Plaintiff

WAL-MART CHINA COMPANY LTD

2nd Plaintiff

WAL-MART PRODUCTION LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca1285)

WAL-MART INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca1288)

LEUNG KA KIT

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Passing Off Action / Interlocutory Applications (application for Default Judgment and Application to Deem Late Service) Heard in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defences filed out of time should be deemed properly served and filed
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have an arguable defence to resist default judgment
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs must prove goodwill within Hong Kong or may rely on international reputation

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants did not seek an extension nor provide evidence to justify indulgence, the late fax did not comply with the court order, and the defences disclosed no arguable defence; therefore the court dismissed the defendants' application to deem service and granted the plaintiffs' orders in the form sought, including costs.

Court Disposition

Applications by the Plaintiffs for relief in the form sought were allowed; Defendants' applications to deem the late service/filing of defences were dismissed; Plaintiffs awarded costs on both summonses.

Orders

  • Orders made in the form sought by the Plaintiffs (default judgment proceedings to proceed)
  • Defendants' applications to deem the service and filing of defences on 19 September good and to extend time dismissed