TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER
The court refused to determine the defendants' application and adjourned it sine die with liberty to restore because (1) the Undertaking was given to the Court of Appeal and the proper forum to determine whether a cross‑undertaking should be imposed is the Court of Appeal (raising functus officio and jurisdictional issues), (2) cross‑undertakings cannot be imposed retrospectively, and (3) it is premature and potentially academic to decide the issue before the trial adjudication.
- Citation
- TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: TSIT WING (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: TSIT WING INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: TSIT WING COFFEE COMPANY, LIMITED; 4th Plaintiff: TW CAF LTD.; 1st Defendant: TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD; 2nd Defendant: TWG TEA (HK) COMPANY LIMITED
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 14 May 2013
- Case Number
- HCA2210/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Passing Off and Trade Marks Infringement / Interlocutory Application; Adjourned Sine Die Before Trial
- Outcome
- Defendants' application refused; adjourned sine die with liberty to restore; plaintiffs awarded costs and certificate for two counsel.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunction, Cross Undertaking as to Damages, Undertaking to Court, Functus Officio, Costs and Counsel Certificate
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
TSIT WING (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED
1st Plaintiff
TSIT WING INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED
2nd Plaintiff
TSIT WING COFFEE COMPANY, LIMITED
3rd Plaintiff
TW CAF LTD.
4th Plaintiff
TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD
1st Defendant
TWG TEA (HK) COMPANY LIMITED
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Passing Off and Trade Marks Infringement / Interlocutory Application; Adjourned Sine Die Before Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an express cross-undertaking as to damages can be imposed or implied in respect of an undertaking given to the Court of Appeal
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to impose or confirm a cross-undertaking when the undertaking was given before the Court of Appeal (functus officio issue)
- 3 Whether it is premature or academic to determine the cross-undertaking issue before trial
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused to determine the defendants' application and adjourned it sine die with liberty to restore because (1) the Undertaking was given to the Court of Appeal and the proper forum to determine whether a cross‑undertaking should be imposed is the Court of Appeal (raising functus officio and jurisdictional issues), (2) cross‑undertakings cannot be imposed retrospectively, and (3) it is premature and potentially academic to decide the issue before the trial adjudication.
Court Disposition
Defendants' application refused; adjourned sine die with liberty to restore; plaintiffs awarded costs and certificate for two counsel.
Orders
- Adjourn application sine die with liberty to restore defendants' summons dated 25 September 2012 concerning cross-undertaking as to damages.
- Plaintiffs to have costs of the hearing on 30 April 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment