EPRC LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CENTURY CITY DEVELOPMENTS LTD. AND OTHERS

EPRC LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CENTURY CITY DEVELOPMENTS LTD. AND OTHERS

The application to discharge the interlocutory injunction was refused because the 3rd Defendants absence at the original inter partes hearing was intentional (lack of funds) supported by inconsistent subsequent explanations, the 8-month delay in applying to discharge was inordinate, the Plaintiffs had established a serious question to be tried on alleged copyright infringement and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the order; criticisms and alleged non-disclosure were matters for trial, not for interlocutory discharge.

Citation
EPRC LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CENTURY CITY DEVELOPMENTS LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant; 3rd Defendant: UTER LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 December 2001
Case Number
HCA6692/2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction / Copyright and Contract Dispute / Application to Discharge Interlocutory Injunction (interlocutory Stage)
Outcome
Application by 3rd Defendant to discharge the interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, Interlocutory Injunction, Material Non Disclosure, Relitigation of Interlocutory Issues
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Contract Civil Procedure Injunctions Copyright Infringement Breach of Contract Interlocutory Injunction Material Non Disclosure +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

UTER LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction / Copyright and Contract Dispute / Application to Discharge Interlocutory Injunction (interlocutory Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 7 July 2000 hearing was inter partes and whether that affects right to apply to discharge
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs raised a serious question to be tried on copyright infringement
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours discharge of the interlocutory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the interlocutory injunction was refused because the 3rd Defendants absence at the original inter partes hearing was intentional (lack of funds) supported by inconsistent subsequent explanations, the 8-month delay in applying to discharge was inordinate, the Plaintiffs had established a serious question to be tried on alleged copyright infringement and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the order; criticisms and alleged non-disclosure were matters for trial, not for interlocutory discharge.

Court Disposition

Application by 3rd Defendant to discharge the interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • 3rd Defendants application to discharge the interlocutory injunction dated 7 July 2000 refused