SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because, although the court accepted the Plans were original and that the Plaintiff had rebutted the copyright notice presumption of Gammon's ownership, there remained triable issues as to whether the Defendants had authorized the copying; the evidence (general contract specifications, subcontracting and approval rights) was insufficient at summary stage to conclude authorization as a matter of law.

Citation
SKY KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING LTD v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Sky King Machinery Engineering Ltd; 1st Defendant: Chun Wo Construction & Engineering Company Ltd; 2nd Defendant: China Railway Group Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2015
Case Number
HCA1918/2013
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement (civil) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Authorization, Summary Judgment, Infringement, Ownership, Co Ownership, Originality
Source Language
EN
Copyright Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Authorization Summary Judgment Infringement Ownership Co Ownership +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sky King Machinery Engineering Ltd

Plaintiff

Chun Wo Construction & Engineering Company Ltd

1st Defendant

China Railway Group Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement (civil) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants copied or authorized copying of the Plaintiff's construction plans
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is the owner or co-owner of the copyright in the Plans
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants authorized infringement within the meaning of s22 Copyright Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because, although the court accepted the Plans were original and that the Plaintiff had rebutted the copyright notice presumption of Gammon's ownership, there remained triable issues as to whether the Defendants had authorized the copying; the evidence (general contract specifications, subcontracting and approval rights) was insufficient at summary stage to conclude authorization as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment dismissed
  • Order nisi that the Plaintiff should bear the Defendants' costs of the Order 14 Summons, with certificate for counsel