LEUNG YEE AND ANOTHER v. NG YIU MING AND ANOTHER

LEUNG YEE AND ANOTHER v. NG YIU MING AND ANOTHER

The court granted a one month extension to comply with the further undertaking because the plaintiffs acted promptly, were not mala fide and the substantive purpose of the consent order had been achieved despite a technical defect in letter sizes; 'liberty to apply' does not permit reopening the consent order but permits working out its terms and enforcing them; indemnity costs were not justified.

Citation
LEUNG YEE AND ANOTHER v. NG YIU MING AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff; Respondent in HCMP 1730/1999: Leung Yee; 2nd Plaintiff: Ng Yuk Kin; 1st Defendant; Applicant in HCMP 1730/1999: Ng Yiu Ming; 2nd Defendant: Chiu Fung Yee
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 2000
Case Number
HCA7462/1998
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Actions: HCA 7462/1998 (partnership) and HCMP 1730/1999 (trade Mark Rectification) / Interlocutory Application in Chambers for Extension of Time to Comply With a Consent Order; Decision on Application
Outcome
Application granted: time for compliance extended to one month from date of order; costs awarded to defendants but not on indemnity basis; certificate for two counsel granted.
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Undertaking to Alter Signage, Rectification of Trade Mark, Extension of Time, Costs
Source Language
EN
Trade Marks Contract Civil Procedure Partnership Equity Consent Order Undertaking to Alter Signage Rectification of Trade Mark +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leung Yee

1st Plaintiff; Respondent in HCMP 1730/1999

Ng Yuk Kin

2nd Plaintiff

Ng Yiu Ming

1st Defendant; Applicant in HCMP 1730/1999

Chiu Fung Yee

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Actions: HCA 7462/1998 (partnership) and HCMP 1730/1999 (trade Mark Rectification) / Interlocutory Application in Chambers for Extension of Time to Comply With a Consent Order; Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may grant an extension of time to comply with a consent order
  2. 2 Whether the 'Liberty to apply' provision permits varying or reopening a consent order
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs properly complied with the undertaking to alter shop signs and trademark registration

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted a one month extension to comply with the further undertaking because the plaintiffs acted promptly, were not mala fide and the substantive purpose of the consent order had been achieved despite a technical defect in letter sizes; 'liberty to apply' does not permit reopening the consent order but permits working out its terms and enforcing them; indemnity costs were not justified.

Court Disposition

Application granted: time for compliance extended to one month from date of order; costs awarded to defendants but not on indemnity basis; certificate for two counsel granted.

Orders

  • Time for compliance with the Further Undertaking by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in HCA 7462/1998 and the Respondent in HCMP 1730/1999 extended to one month from the date of this order
  • Costs of the application to the Defendants, to be taxed if not agreed