KUANG TENG INDUSTRY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER

KUANG TENG INDUSTRY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER

The ex parte mareva injunctions were discharged because the plaintiffs failed to honour express undertakings (notably the HK$6,000,000 bank guarantee), delayed and deficient service of orders and supporting materials, and made material misstatements/non-disclosures in the ex parte applications; further, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
KUANG TENG INDUSTRY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Kuang Teng Industry Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Minton Optic Industry Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Multispark Limited; 2nd Defendant: Shinon Industries Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 July 2001
Case Number
HCA1143/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil (intellectual Property: Trade Mark, Copyright, Passing Off) / Interlocutory — Application to Discharge Ex Parte Mareva Injunctions and Application for Fresh Mareva Injunctions (heard 7 July 2001; Decision Delivered 13 August 2001)
Outcome
Ex parte mareva injunctions discharged; applications for fresh mareva injunctions refused; costs awarded to the defendants.
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Relief, Mareva Injunction, Anton Piller Order, Breach of Undertaking to the Court, Material Non Disclosure, Service of Process, Election Between Damages and Account of Profits, Admissibility of Without Prejudice Negotiations
Source Language
en
Trade Mark Law Copyright Law Passing Off Interim Injunctions Mareva Injunctions Civil Procedure Ex Parte Relief Mareva Injunction +6 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kuang Teng Industry Company Limited

1st Plaintiff

Minton Optic Industry Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Multispark Limited

1st Defendant

Shinon Industries Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (intellectual Property: Trade Mark, Copyright, Passing Off) / Interlocutory — Application to Discharge Ex Parte Mareva Injunctions and Application for Fresh Mareva Injunctions (heard 7 July 2001; Decision Delivered 13 August 2001)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte mareva injunctions should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs breached undertakings to the court (bank guarantee and prompt service)
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure or misrepresentation in the ex parte applications

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte mareva injunctions were discharged because the plaintiffs failed to honour express undertakings (notably the HK$6,000,000 bank guarantee), delayed and deficient service of orders and supporting materials, and made material misstatements/non-disclosures in the ex parte applications; further, the plaintiffs failed to prove a real risk of dissipation and therefore applications for fresh mareva injunctions were refused.

Court Disposition

Ex parte mareva injunctions discharged; applications for fresh mareva injunctions refused; costs awarded to the defendants.

Orders

  • Ex parte mareva injunctions in HCA1143/2000 and HCA9619/2000 discharged
  • Applications for fresh mareva injunctions refused