BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LID. v. SUPREME DAY COMPANY LIMITED and Others

BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LID. v. SUPREME DAY COMPANY LIMITED and Others

The plaintiff was not entitled to the requested particulars because the defence as pleaded fairly answered the points of claim and defendants cannot be compelled to particularise facts or allegations they have not advanced; denials of ownership, licence and knowledge were sufficient; therefore the amended summons for further particulars was dismissed and costs allocated as stated.

Citation
BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LID. v. SUPREME DAY COMPANY LIMITED and Others
Parties
Plaintiff: Binary Evolution Computers Limited; 1st Defendant: Supreme Day Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Neway Karaoke Box Limited; 3rd Defendant: Capital More Company Limited; 4th Defendant: Ma Wai Wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 February 1996
Case Number
HCCL198/1995
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Civil (intellectual Property) / Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars (chambers Hearing)
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed; plaintiff's application for further particulars refused; order nisi as to costs made
Legal Topics
Particulars of Defence, Copyright Ownership, Licensing, Knowledge and Admissions, Corporate Attribution
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Company Law Particulars of Defence Copyright Ownership Licensing Knowledge and Admissions Corporate Attribution

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Binary Evolution Computers Limited

Plaintiff

Supreme Day Company Limited

1st Defendant

Neway Karaoke Box Limited

2nd Defendant

Capital More Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Ma Wai Wah

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial List Civil (intellectual Property) / Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars (chambers Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants must provide particulars identifying leaseholder/owner of premises used by Neway
  2. 2 Whether defendants must identify which defendant (if any) holds a licence or right to use AKS
  3. 3 Whether defendants must provide particulars of component codes and programmes alleged to constitute AKS

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not entitled to the requested particulars because the defence as pleaded fairly answered the points of claim and defendants cannot be compelled to particularise facts or allegations they have not advanced; denials of ownership, licence and knowledge were sufficient; therefore the amended summons for further particulars was dismissed and costs allocated as stated.

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed; plaintiff's application for further particulars refused; order nisi as to costs made

Orders

  • Amended summons dismissed.
  • Defendants are not required to provide the particulars insisted upon by the plaintiff.