SUPERBRANDS LTD v. ASIA INTEGRATED MEDIA LTD AND OTHERS

SUPERBRANDS LTD v. ASIA INTEGRATED MEDIA LTD AND OTHERS

The court held that the 2004 and 2006 Agreements required the respondents to account to Superbrands for 20% of gross revenue including the cash equivalent of benefits in kind arising from barter; in the single identified barter (Hourglass) the cash equivalent was $0; respondents had complied with discovery;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SUPERBRANDS LTD v. ASIA INTEGRATED MEDIA LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Superbrands Limited; 1st Respondent: Asia Integrated Media Limited; 2nd Respondent: Peter William Jeffery; 3rd Respondent: Victor Jeffery
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Case Number
HCMP559/2008
Procedural Posture
High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings (inherent Jurisdiction) HCMP 559/2008 / Judgment (court of First Instance, in Chambers) 19 June 2009
Outcome
The judge answered the posed Questions: (1) No general additional accounting for barter beyond contractual revenue accounting; respondents must account for 20% of cash equivalent where applicable (Hourglass value $0); (2) No further discovery ordered; (3) Yes, respondents to pay net amount of $152,757.17; (4) Yes...
Legal Topics
Accounting of Commissions, Barter and Benefits in Kind, Discovery Obligations, Interest on Judgment Debts, Set Off and Netting of Mutual Claims, Security for Performance, Contract Interpretation
Source Language
en
Contract Commercial Law Equity Civil Procedure Discovery Remedies Accounting of Commissions Barter and Benefits in Kind +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Superbrands Limited

Applicant

Asia Integrated Media Limited

1st Respondent

Peter William Jeffery

2nd Respondent

Victor Jeffery

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings (inherent Jurisdiction) HCMP 559/2008 / Judgment (court of First Instance, in Chambers) 19 June 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents must account to applicant for cash equivalent of barter/benefits in kind received in relation to publications
  2. 2 Whether respondents complied with discovery order of 3 February 2009 and must provide further discovery
  3. 3 Whether respondents should pay the net amount identified as due ($152,757.17)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 2004 and 2006 Agreements required the respondents to account to Superbrands for 20% of gross revenue including the cash equivalent of benefits in kind arising from barter; in the single identified barter (Hourglass) the cash equivalent was $0; respondents had complied with discovery; respondents must pay the net balance found due ($152,757.17) with interest at 1% over HSBC HKD prime from 1 July 2007 until payment; no further interest is payable on the US$250,000 bonus because it is dealt with in the netting exercise; and the court will not order funds paid into court as security.

Court Disposition

The judge answered the posed Questions: (1) No general additional accounting for barter beyond contractual revenue accounting; respondents must account for 20% of cash equivalent where applicable (Hourglass value $0); (2) No further discovery ordered; (3) Yes, respondents to pay net amount of $152,757.17; (4) Yes...

Orders

  • Respondents to account for 20% of the cash equivalent of any benefits in kind received under the 2004/2006 Agreements (identified Hourglass barter had cash equivalent $0)
  • No further disclosure ordered under the February 2009 order