H&M HENNES & MAURITZ GBC AB v. ROADGET BUSINESS PTE LTD AND OTHERS

H&M HENNES & MAURITZ GBC AB v. ROADGET BUSINESS PTE LTD AND OTHERS

The court held that although the Plaintiff did not win on the injunctive-relief issue, the Plaintiff achieved a significant declaratory victory transferring monetary-liability to the 1st Defendant and therefore is entitled to the costs of the action; however, because limited additional time and costs were incurred by the unsuccessful injunctive-relief argument and because the Plaintiff filed supplemental submissions out of time and beyond scope causing further reply costs, the court varied the costs order nisi so that the 1st Defendant pays 70% of the costs of the summary judgment application to the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff recovers all costs of the action against the 1st Defendant;...

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2009
Parties
Plaintiff: H&M Hennes & Mauritz GBC AB; 1st Defendant: Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Fashion Choice Pte. Ltd.; 3rd Defendant: Topfashion Business Co. Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Case Number
HCIP45/2022
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Summary Judgment Application / Decision on Costs Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Costs order nisi varied between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant as set out in orders
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Costs Order Nisi, Injunctive Relief, Transfer of Liability Under TBPCO, Supplemental Submissions
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Summary Judgment Costs Order Nisi Injunctive Relief Transfer of Liability Under TBPCO Supplemental Submissions

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H&M Hennes & Mauritz GBC AB

Plaintiff

Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.

1st Defendant

Fashion Choice Pte. Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Topfashion Business Co. Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Summary Judgment Application / Decision on Costs Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied as between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant
  2. 2 Whether partial success by the 1st Defendant on injunctive relief issues warrants a discount to the Plaintiff's costs
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff's late and over-scoped supplemental submissions justify reduction in costs awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the Plaintiff did not win on the injunctive-relief issue, the Plaintiff achieved a significant declaratory victory transferring monetary-liability to the 1st Defendant and therefore is entitled to the costs of the action; however, because limited additional time and costs were incurred by the unsuccessful injunctive-relief argument and because the Plaintiff filed supplemental submissions out of time and beyond scope causing further reply costs, the court varied the costs order nisi so that the 1st Defendant pays 70% of the costs of the summary judgment application to the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff recovers all costs of the action against the 1st Defendant;...

Court Disposition

Costs order nisi varied between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant as set out in orders

Orders

  • Save that the 1st Defendant do pay 70% of the costs of the summary judgment application to the Plaintiff, the costs of the action be to the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant
  • The costs order nisi as to the Plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants shall stand