BRIDAM LTD AND ANOTHER v. SA SA COSMETIC COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

BRIDAM LTD AND ANOTHER v. SA SA COSMETIC COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Plaintiffs had sufficient possession and enforceable rights in the signage (or at least a right warranting protection) and the 2nd defendant trespassed by reinstating the advertisement; the signage is a fixture of the landlord; there was urgency and no real prospect of successful defence by defendants, therefore interlocutory relief was justified and granted.

Citation
BRIDAM LTD AND ANOTHER v. SA SA COSMETIC COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Bridam Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Kinetic Energy Company Limited; 1st Defendant: SA SA Cosmetic Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Outdoor Elements (Hong Kong) Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2013
Case Number
HCA1050/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing Interim Injunction Granted
Outcome
Application allowed; interim relief granted
Legal Topics
Injunction, Possessory Title, Easement, Fixtures, Tenancy, License, Urgent Interlocutory Relief
Source Language
EN
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Equity Civil Procedure Injunction Possessory Title Easement Fixtures +3 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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bridam Limited

1st Plaintiff

Kinetic Energy Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

SA SA Cosmetic Company Limited

1st Defendant

Outdoor Elements (Hong Kong) Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing Interim Injunction Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether plaintiffs acquired possessory title to the external wall to which signage is attached
  2. 2 whether plaintiffs held a licence or easement/right to use the wall for signage
  3. 3 whether the 2nd defendant lawfully entered and put up the 1st defendant's advertisement or trespassed

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs had sufficient possession and enforceable rights in the signage (or at least a right warranting protection) and the 2nd defendant trespassed by reinstating the advertisement; the signage is a fixture of the landlord; there was urgency and no real prospect of successful defence by defendants, therefore interlocutory relief was justified and granted.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; interim relief granted

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted in terms of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the order on the basis of undertakings (a) as amended and undertakings (b) and (c)
  • Plaintiffs awarded 90 per cent of their costs against the defendants