ALA 2000 S.P.A v. ADVANCED APPLIANCE LTD

ALA 2000 S.P.A v. ADVANCED APPLIANCE LTD

The court refused to increase or decrease the fortification: the defendants either knew or ought to have known the figures relied upon at the time of the consent order; the undertaking was to be construed as covering the defendants' prior conduct and could not be relied on to claim those losses; delay did not fall solely on the plaintiff and there was no evidence the plaintiff's ability to meet damages had worsened, therefore no good reason existed to disturb the consent order.

Citation
ALA 2000 S.P.A v. ADVANCED APPLIANCE LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: ALA 2000 S.P.A; 1st Defendant: ADVANCED APPLIANCE LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: WANG XIA; 3rd Defendant: RICHARD EDWIN GRAVES
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2004
Case Number
HCA9282/2000
Procedural Posture
Copyright Action / Interlocutory Application to Vary Consent Order and Interim Injunction Stage
Outcome
Defendants' summons dated 12 January 2004 dismissed with costs (nisi) to the plaintiff; Plaintiff's summons dated 20 January 2004 dismissed with costs (nisi) to the defendants.
Legal Topics
Copyright, Interim Injunction, Undertaking in Damages, Security/fortification, Variation of Consent Order, Construction of Undertakings
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Copyright Interim Injunction Undertaking in Damages Security/fortification Variation of Consent Order +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALA 2000 S.P.A

Plaintiff

ADVANCED APPLIANCE LIMITED

1st Defendant

WANG XIA

2nd Defendant

RICHARD EDWIN GRAVES

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Action / Interlocutory Application to Vary Consent Order and Interim Injunction Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may increase fortification of the plaintiff's cross-undertaking
  2. 2 Construction and geographical scope of the defendants' undertaking
  3. 3 Whether delay in bringing the matter to trial justifies increased fortification

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to increase or decrease the fortification: the defendants either knew or ought to have known the figures relied upon at the time of the consent order; the undertaking was to be construed as covering the defendants' prior conduct and could not be relied on to claim those losses; delay did not fall solely on the plaintiff and there was no evidence the plaintiff's ability to meet damages had worsened, therefore no good reason existed to disturb the consent order.

Court Disposition

Defendants' summons dated 12 January 2004 dismissed with costs (nisi) to the plaintiff; Plaintiff's summons dated 20 January 2004 dismissed with costs (nisi) to the defendants.

Orders

  • Dismissal of defendants' summons dated 12 January 2004 with costs (nisi) to the plaintiff
  • Dismissal of plaintiff's summons dated 20 January 2004 with costs (nisi) to the defendants