LIAO FU PIN AND ANOTHER v. AD-MAGNETICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

LIAO FU PIN AND ANOTHER v. AD-MAGNETICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a high degree of probability of success on the issue of the 2nd defendant’s knowledge of infringement, while there was a strong prima facie case against the 1st defendant for breach of licence; because any costs recovered from the 1st defendant would buffer the 2nd defendant’s exposure, and the merits did not justify ordering security against the plaintiffs, the appeal was dismissed and the application for security for costs was refused.

Citation
LIAO FU PIN AND ANOTHER v. AD-MAGNETICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: 1st Plaintiff (pseudonym Ji Mi); 2nd Plaintiff: 2nd Plaintiff (exclusive agent/advertising agency); 1st Defendant: NY Limited (formerly AD-Magnetics Consultants Co. Ltd.); 2nd Defendant: Tai Lin Radio Service Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 April 2007
Case Number
HCA1778/2006
Procedural Posture
Copyright Action and Related Contractual Claim; Application for Security for Costs / Appeal From Master’s Order Refusing Security for Costs; Reasons on Hearing in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master’s order refusing security for costs upheld
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Secondary Infringement, Exclusive Licence, Breach of Licence, Knowledge/constructive Knowledge
Source Language
EN
Intellectual Property Copyright Civil Procedure Contract Law Security for Costs Secondary Infringement Exclusive Licence Breach of Licence +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st Plaintiff (pseudonym Ji Mi)

1st Plaintiff

2nd Plaintiff (exclusive agent/advertising agency)

2nd Plaintiff

NY Limited (formerly AD-Magnetics Consultants Co. Ltd.)

1st Defendant

Tai Lin Radio Service Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Action and Related Contractual Claim; Application for Security for Costs / Appeal From Master’s Order Refusing Security for Costs; Reasons on Hearing in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered under O.23 r.1(a) RHC against foreign plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have a high degree of probability of success on the merits
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd plaintiff is an exclusive licensee with title to sue under the Copyright Ordinance (Cap.528)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a high degree of probability of success on the issue of the 2nd defendant’s knowledge of infringement, while there was a strong prima facie case against the 1st defendant for breach of licence; because any costs recovered from the 1st defendant would buffer the 2nd defendant’s exposure, and the merits did not justify ordering security against the plaintiffs, the appeal was dismissed and the application for security for costs was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master’s order refusing security for costs upheld

Orders

  • 2nd defendant’s appeal dismissed
  • 2nd defendant’s application for security for costs under O.23 r.1(a) RHC refused