ALVIERO MARTINI S.P.A. v. BUBBLE RETAIL MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

ALVIERO MARTINI S.P.A. v. BUBBLE RETAIL MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Plaintiff failed to inform defendants by the 7 September 2009 deadline that it would not file an affidavit in reply and would give unconditional leave to defend; defendants reasonably prepared for the hearing and incurred avoidable costs; therefore plaintiff must pay defendants' costs incurred after 7 September 2009 including the costs of the paper argument. Unconditional leave alone does not mandate costs in the cause where the grantor's conduct caused the additional costs.

Citation
ALVIERO MARTINI S.P.A. v. BUBBLE RETAIL MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 October 2009
Case Number
HCA1937/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment (copyright, Trademark, Passing Off) / Costs Decision Following Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs of the Order 14 Summons incurred after 7 September 2009, including costs for the paper argument; costs up to 7 September 2009 to be in the cause.
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Summary Judgment, Costs Orders, Unconditional Leave to Defend
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Costs Copyright Infringement Trademark Infringement Passing Off Summary Judgment Costs Orders +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment (copyright, Trademark, Passing Off) / Costs Decision Following Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs after 7 September 2009 should be in the cause or payable by the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's failure to notify defendants by the 7 September deadline caused avoidable costs
  3. 3 Whether unconditional leave to defend automatically requires costs to be in the cause

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to inform defendants by the 7 September 2009 deadline that it would not file an affidavit in reply and would give unconditional leave to defend; defendants reasonably prepared for the hearing and incurred avoidable costs; therefore plaintiff must pay defendants' costs incurred after 7 September 2009 including the costs of the paper argument. Unconditional leave alone does not mandate costs in the cause where the grantor's conduct caused the additional costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs of the Order 14 Summons incurred after 7 September 2009, including costs for the paper argument; costs up to 7 September 2009 to be in the cause.

Orders

  • Costs of the application up to 7 September 2009 to be in the cause.
  • Costs incurred by the defendants in the Order 14 Summons after 7 September 2009 including the costs for the paper argument to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants in any event.