SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was not satisfied there was any reasonable prospect of success; the Recorder's grounds for refusing to strike out the claim and particulars of infringement were adequate; costs were awarded to the plaintiff; the 1st defendant was ordered to lodge written submissions on costs within 14 days and was prohibited from applying for an oral hearing under Order 59, Rule 2A(8).

Citation
SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: SNE ENGINEERING CO. LTD.; 1st Defendant: HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (新昌營造廠有限公司); 2nd Defendant: CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO. LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 January 2013
Case Number
HCMP2636/2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Leave to Appeal) / Court of Appeal Decision Refusing Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Leave to Appeal, Costs, Oral Hearing Prohibition, Particulars of Infringement
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Strike Out Application Leave to Appeal Costs Oral Hearing Prohibition Particulars of Infringement

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SNE ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

Plaintiff

HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (新昌營造廠有限公司)

1st Defendant

CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO. LTD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Leave to Appeal) / Court of Appeal Decision Refusing Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim and particulars of infringement should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal (leave to appeal)
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant may apply for an oral hearing to reconsider his application

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was not satisfied there was any reasonable prospect of success; the Recorder's grounds for refusing to strike out the claim and particulars of infringement were adequate; costs were awarded to the plaintiff; the 1st defendant was ordered to lodge written submissions on costs within 14 days and was prohibited from applying for an oral hearing under Order 59, Rule 2A(8).

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused with costs to the plaintiff
  • 1st defendant to lodge written submissions to the plaintiff's statement of costs within 14 days