EUXOS PACIFIC SA AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSAL GIFT & STATIONARY PRODUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

EUXOS PACIFIC SA AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSAL GIFT & STATIONARY PRODUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Defendants failed to prove the existence of the alleged All Issues Term and Mould Term; plaintiffs having paid for the 41 moulds are owners entitled to possession; defendants hold those moulds on trust and must deliver them up or pay the sum due, with inquiries as to damages or account of profits as ordered.

Citation
EUXOS PACIFIC SA AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSAL GIFT & STATIONARY PRODUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Euxos Pacific S.A.; 2nd Plaintiff: China Gate International (H.K.) Ltd; 3rd Plaintiff: Edito-Service S.A.; 1st Defendant: Universal Gift & Stationary Production Company Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Universal Giftstock (HK) Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Universal Gifto ck (HK) Co. (a firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2006
Case Number
HCA1420/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Property/detinue/trust / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Re-amended defence and counterclaim dismissed; plaintiffs' claims successful in part
Legal Topics
Return of Property, Constructive Trust, Detinue, Conversion, Breach of Contract, Account of Profits
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Trust Tort Civil Procedure Return of Property Constructive Trust Detinue +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Euxos Pacific S.A.

1st Plaintiff

China Gate International (H.K.) Ltd

2nd Plaintiff

Edito-Service S.A.

3rd Plaintiff

Universal Gift & Stationary Production Company Ltd

1st Defendant

Universal Giftstock (HK) Ltd

2nd Defendant

Universal Gifto ck (HK) Co. (a firm)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Property/detinue/trust / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged 'All Issues Term' existed
  2. 2 Whether the alleged 'Mould Term' existed
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs owned the 41 moulds and were entitled to possession

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to prove the existence of the alleged All Issues Term and Mould Term; plaintiffs having paid for the 41 moulds are owners entitled to possession; defendants hold those moulds on trust and must deliver them up or pay the sum due, with inquiries as to damages or account of profits as ordered.

Court Disposition

Re-amended defence and counterclaim dismissed; plaintiffs' claims successful in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendants have been holding the 41 moulds on trust for the plaintiffs
  • Order for delivery up of the 41 moulds to the plaintiffs within 14 days