BPI COMMUNICATIONS INC. v. STARNICE LTD. AND OTHERS

BPI COMMUNICATIONS INC. v. STARNICE LTD. AND OTHERS

The Master erred in discharging the charging order on terms that effectively allowed the Defendants to substitute payment into court for payment of crystallised taxed costs; an unconditional costs order, once taxed, gives the plaintiff a final enforceable entitlement which is not displaced by defendants' payment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BPI COMMUNICATIONS INC. v. STARNICE LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: BPI Communications Inc.; 1st Defendant: Starnice Limited; 2nd Defendant: So Wing Kuen; 3rd Defendant: Tse Mei Lin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 November 1999
Case Number
HCA5301/1998
Procedural Posture
Passing Off/trade Mark Enforcement and Costs Enforcement / Appeal From Master Against Discharge of Charging Order (interlocutory Enforcement Proceedings)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master Lok's order discharging the charging order on condition of payment into court set aside; charging order to be made absolute subject to further directions on costs
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Mark, Charging Order, Taxation of Costs, Security for Costs, Interim Stay, Appeal
Source Language
en
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Enforcement Security for Costs Passing Off Trade Mark Charging Order Taxation of Costs +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BPI Communications Inc.

Plaintiff

Starnice Limited

1st Defendant

So Wing Kuen

2nd Defendant

Tse Mei Lin

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Passing Off/trade Mark Enforcement and Costs Enforcement / Appeal From Master Against Discharge of Charging Order (interlocutory Enforcement Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a charging order nisi should be made absolute where defendants pay the sum into court instead of paying taxed costs
  2. 2 Whether payment into court can displace an unconditional, crystallised costs order
  3. 3 Whether a pending application for security for costs affects the plaintiff's right to enforce an existing taxed costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The Master erred in discharging the charging order on terms that effectively allowed the Defendants to substitute payment into court for payment of crystallised taxed costs; an unconditional costs order, once taxed, gives the plaintiff a final enforceable entitlement which is not displaced by defendants' payment into court or by separate proceedings for security for costs; the interim stay related solely to the damages inquiry and did not impede enforcement of the costs order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master Lok's order discharging the charging order on condition of payment into court set aside; charging order to be made absolute subject to further directions on costs

Orders

  • Allow the Plaintiff's appeal against Master Lok's order
  • Set aside the conditional discharge of the charging order nisi and order that the charging order be made absolute