PACIFIC FINE ENGINEEERING LTD v. SAMTECH LIGHTING LTD

PACIFIC FINE ENGINEEERING LTD v. SAMTECH LIGHTING LTD

Because the 1st defendant failed to file an affirmation, the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence established acts by the defendant through its debt‑collecting agent that justified granting the injunction in terms of items (a)(i) to (vi) and item (b); accordingly the injunction was granted and costs were awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.

Citation
PACIFIC FINE ENGINEEERING LTD v. SAMTECH LIGHTING LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2009
Case Number
DCCJ302/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction (debt Collection) / Interlocutory Application/decision (3 August 2009)
Outcome
Injunction granted in terms of items (a)(i) to (vi) and item (b); no order on items (c) and (d); costs awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant, taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.
Legal Topics
Injunction, Uncontested Evidence, Failure to File Affirmation, Costs Order
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Debt Collection Costs Injunction Uncontested Evidence Failure to File Affirmation Costs Order

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction (debt Collection) / Interlocutory Application/decision (3 August 2009)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction should be granted against the 1st defendant for conduct via a debt‑collecting agent
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's evidence can be accepted as uncontradicted due to the 1st defendant's failure to file an affirmation
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order

Ratio Decidendi

Because the 1st defendant failed to file an affirmation, the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence established acts by the defendant through its debt‑collecting agent that justified granting the injunction in terms of items (a)(i) to (vi) and item (b); accordingly the injunction was granted and costs were awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted in terms of items (a)(i) to (vi) and item (b); no order on items (c) and (d); costs awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant, taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.

Orders

  • Injunction granted in terms of items (a)(i) to (vi) and item (b) of the summons.
  • No order made in respect of items (c) and (d).