MONTRES ROLEX S.A. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YIU CHUNG t/a LEIGHTON TRADING CO. AND ANOTHER

MONTRES ROLEX S.A. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YIU CHUNG t/a LEIGHTON TRADING CO. AND ANOTHER

The appeal was dismissed because the Requests for Further and Better Particulars were unnecessary, inappropriate, incomprehensible and oppressive; many sought evidence rather than facts or premature cross‑examination, and the Master’s refusal was therefore upheld with costs to the plaintiffs to be taxed and paid forthwith.

Citation
MONTRES ROLEX S.A. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YIU CHUNG t/a LEIGHTON TRADING CO. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: MONTRES ROLEX S.A.; 2nd Plaintiff: ROLEX (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 1st Defendant: TSANG YIU CHUNG trading as Leighton Trading Company; 2nd Defendant: MORICH TRADING LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2001
Case Number
HCA15349/1999
Procedural Posture
Passing Off and Trade Mark Infringement / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Dismissal of Requests for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's order refusing the Requests for Further and Better Particulars upheld
Legal Topics
Further and Better Particulars, Pleadings Vs Evidence, Adulteration/modification of Goods, Costs Taxation, Professional Conduct
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Passing Off Civil Procedure Costs Further and Better Particulars Pleadings Vs Evidence Adulteration/modification of Goods +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MONTRES ROLEX S.A.

1st Plaintiff

ROLEX (HONG KONG) LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

TSANG YIU CHUNG trading as Leighton Trading Company

1st Defendant

MORICH TRADING LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Passing Off and Trade Mark Infringement / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master's Dismissal of Requests for Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' Requests for Further and Better Particulars were necessary or oppressive
  2. 2 Whether the particulars sought improperly sought evidence rather than facts
  3. 3 Whether the defence pleading (sale on a basis) constituted a valid limitation of liability

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Requests for Further and Better Particulars were unnecessary, inappropriate, incomprehensible and oppressive; many sought evidence rather than facts or premature cross‑examination, and the Master’s refusal was therefore upheld with costs to the plaintiffs to be taxed and paid forthwith.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's order refusing the Requests for Further and Better Particulars upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to plaintiffs; to be taxed and paid forthwith