EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LTD v. NETHER GAMES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LTD v. NETHER GAMES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

There has been insufficient significant change of circumstances to warrant reduction of the fixed deposit; the deputy judge's broad estimate was appropriate at the interlocutory stage, the applicant's delay/profits/prejudice grounds do not evidence the required change, and partnership/proprietary assertions do not alter the purpose of the fortification; accordingly the summons to release US$470,000 is dismissed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 638
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action): EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant (original Action): NETHER GAMES (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (original Action): LAW CHI MAN; 3rd Defendant (original Action): IP CHI YUNG; 4th Defendant (original Action): CHENG ERIC TAK KWONG; 5th Defendant (original Action): MAN CHI WAI; 6th Defendant (original Action): LO KWONG MAN; Plaintiff (counterclaim Dated 3 May 2013): CHENG ERIC TAK KWONG; 1st Defendant (counterclaim Dated 3 May 2013 / Amended Counterclaim): EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim Dated 3 May 2013) / 1st Defendant (amended Counterclaim): LEE SHIU YIN BONIFACE; 1st Plaintiff (amended Counterclaim): IP CHI YUNG (Ryan Ip); 2nd Plaintiff (amended Counterclaim): LAW CHI MAN (Alvin Law)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 April 2020
Case Number
HCA1659/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Involving Interlocutory Injunction and Counterclaims (copyright/partnership) / Hearing of Summons (application to Release Funds From Interlocutory Fortification); Interlocutory Stage (reasons Dated 22 April 2020)
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Fortification of Undertaking, Proprietary Claim, Partnership Claims, Costs Assessment, Mareva Injunction Analogy
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Company and Partnership Law Intellectual Property Interlocutory Injunction Cross Undertaking in Damages Fortification of Undertaking Proprietary Claim +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff (original Action)

NETHER GAMES (HONG KONG) LIMITED

1st Defendant (original Action)

LAW CHI MAN

2nd Defendant (original Action)

IP CHI YUNG

3rd Defendant (original Action)

CHENG ERIC TAK KWONG

4th Defendant (original Action)

MAN CHI WAI

5th Defendant (original Action)

LO KWONG MAN

6th Defendant (original Action)

CHENG ERIC TAK KWONG

Plaintiff (counterclaim Dated 3 May 2013)

EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED

1st Defendant (counterclaim Dated 3 May 2013 / Amended Counterclaim)

LEE SHIU YIN BONIFACE

2nd Defendant (counterclaim Dated 3 May 2013) / 1st Defendant (amended Counterclaim)

IP CHI YUNG (Ryan Ip)

1st Plaintiff (amended Counterclaim)

LAW CHI MAN (Alvin Law)

2nd Plaintiff (amended Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Involving Interlocutory Injunction and Counterclaims (copyright/partnership) / Hearing of Summons (application to Release Funds From Interlocutory Fortification); Interlocutory Stage (reasons Dated 22 April 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances to justify reduction of fortification of the cross-undertaking
  2. 2 Whether a partnership/proprietary claim alters the principles governing release of fortification
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's grounds (delay, diminished profits, prejudice) justify disposal of part of the fixed deposit

Ratio Decidendi

There has been insufficient significant change of circumstances to warrant reduction of the fixed deposit; the deputy judge's broad estimate was appropriate at the interlocutory stage, the applicant's delay/profits/prejudice grounds do not evidence the required change, and partnership/proprietary assertions do not alter the purpose of the fortification; accordingly the summons to release US$470,000 is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Costs to the defendants (summarily assessed)