MUGINOHO CO LTD v. VIMIU HK CO LTD

MUGINOHO CO LTD v. VIMIU HK CO LTD

The court found the 20 January 2012 order to have been ex parte on the facts (short notice and defendant lacked reasonable opportunity) but held that even if inter partes the plaintiff had failed to disclose a material Osaka District Court decision; the non-disclosure was innocent; notwithstanding that, an interim injunction should be continued because there is a serious issue to be tried, damages would be inadequate and interim relief under Arbitration Ordinance s45 is permissible; the injunction is continued with specific variations excluding certain items from the definition of confidential information and remains subject to the Japanese tribunal's award, orders or directions.

Citation
MUGINOHO CO LTD v. VIMIU HK CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Muginoho Co Ltd; Defendant: Vimiu HK Co Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 February 2012
Case Number
HCMP107/2012
Procedural Posture
High Court (court of First Instance) Miscellaneous Proceedings HCMP 107/2012 / Interim Injunction Discharge Hearing (interlocutory)
Outcome
Interim injunction continued with variations
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure, Ex Parte Versus Inter Partes Hearings, Arbitration Ordinance S45, Adequacy of Damages/irreparable Harm, Comity and Foreign Arbitration
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Injunctions Civil Procedure Contract Confidentiality Interim Relief Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure Ex Parte Versus Inter Partes Hearings +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muginoho Co Ltd

Plaintiff

Vimiu HK Co Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court (court of First Instance) Miscellaneous Proceedings HCMP 107/2012 / Interim Injunction Discharge Hearing (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunction order granted on 20 January 2012 should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether the 20 January 2012 hearing was inter partes or ex parte and the consequent duty of disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff breached duty to disclose a material foreign court decision (Osaka District Court)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the 20 January 2012 order to have been ex parte on the facts (short notice and defendant lacked reasonable opportunity) but held that even if inter partes the plaintiff had failed to disclose a material Osaka District Court decision; the non-disclosure was innocent; notwithstanding that, an interim injunction should be continued because there is a serious issue to be tried, damages would be inadequate and interim relief under Arbitration Ordinance s45 is permissible; the injunction is continued with specific variations excluding certain items from the definition of confidential information and remains subject to the Japanese tribunal's award, orders or directions.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued with variations

Orders

  • Continue the interim injunction order of 20 January 2012 pending determination of the originating summons and subject to the award, orders or directions of the Japanese tribunal or until further order
  • Vary definition of "confidential information" to exclude: (a) the mixing ratio of the ingredients for the puff dough and the pie dough; and (b) the recipe for the cream filling, which are in the public domain