MAILEX LTD v. GREFO LTD

MAILEX LTD v. GREFO LTD

Plaintiff failed to establish a clear breach of Clause 12 at this interlocutory stage and damages would be an adequate remedy while the defendant would suffer substantial and difficult to quantify harm; there was a serious question to be tried about prior consent/acquiescence, therefore the injunction was refused...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MAILEX LTD v. GREFO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Mailex Limited; Defendant: Grefo Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 June 1982
Case Number
HCA3530/1982
Procedural Posture
Injunction (civil) / Chambers Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Plaintiff's summons dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Licence Breach, Signage/advertising, Consent/acquiescence, Default Judgment
Source Language
en
Property Contract Equity Civil Procedure Injunctions Licence Breach Signage/advertising Consent/acquiescence +1 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mailex Limited

Plaintiff

Grefo Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction (civil) / Chambers Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should issue to restrain exhibition of a signboard alleged to breach a licence clause requiring written consent
  2. 2 Whether prior consent or acquiescence by the plaintiff precludes the need for fresh written consent for alterations to an existing signboard
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favours granting or refusing the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to establish a clear breach of Clause 12 at this interlocutory stage and damages would be an adequate remedy while the defendant would suffer substantial and difficult to quantify harm; there was a serious question to be tried about prior consent/acquiescence, therefore the injunction was refused and the summons dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summons dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with costs to the defendant.
  • Undertaking in terms of paragraph 1 of the plaintiff's summons accepted; injunction in terms of paragraph 2 refused