FOK HING (HK) TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER v. GUNAWAN-INDRA, t/a BUMIPALA DHANADWIPA

FOK HING (HK) TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER v. GUNAWAN-INDRA, t/a BUMIPALA DHANADWIPA

The default judgment was interlocutory for the purposes of s14AA and Order 59 r2B and was not within the classes treated as final under Order 59 r21(1)(a); the defendant did not obtain leave to appeal within the required time and did not seek an extension with a demonstrable real prospect of success, therefore the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
FOK HING (HK) TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER v. GUNAWAN-INDRA, t/a BUMIPALA DHANADWIPA
Parties
1st Plaintiff: FOK HING (HK) TRADING LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: PT. INDOFOOD CBP SUKSES MAKMUR TBK; Defendant (appellant): GUNAWAN-INDRA trading as BUMIPALA DHANADWIPA (also known as TOKO INDONESIA GAJAHMADA)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 July 2014
Case Number
CACV74/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Summons to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of Appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Interlocutory Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Abuse of Process, Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Trademark Law Default Judgment Interlocutory Appeal Leave to Appeal Abuse of Process Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FOK HING (HK) TRADING LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

PT. INDOFOOD CBP SUKSES MAKMUR TBK

2nd Plaintiff

GUNAWAN-INDRA trading as BUMIPALA DHANADWIPA (also known as TOKO INDONESIA GAJAHMADA)

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Summons to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was interlocutory for the purpose of s14AA High Court Ordinance and required leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Appeal was invalid for failure to seek leave under Order 59 r2B/Section 14AA
  3. 3 Whether the defendant abused process by appealing instead of applying to set aside under Order 19 r9

Ratio Decidendi

The default judgment was interlocutory for the purposes of s14AA and Order 59 r2B and was not within the classes treated as final under Order 59 r21(1)(a); the defendant did not obtain leave to appeal within the required time and did not seek an extension with a demonstrable real prospect of success, therefore the Notice of Appeal was invalid and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Notice of Appeal struck out

Orders

  • Notice of Appeal struck out
  • Defendant to pay costs of the strike out application to the plaintiffs assessed at HKD 40000 on a party and party basis