NG YIU MING v. LEUNG YEE

NG YIU MING v. LEUNG YEE

The application for a one month extension was granted because the plaintiffs had acted promptly and at expense, the breach was technical (letter sizes), there was no irremediable prejudice to defendants, the liberty to apply permitted working out and enforcement of the consent order, and refusing relief would unjustly enrich the defendants; indemnity costs were not justified.

Citation
NG YIU MING v. LEUNG YEE
Parties
1st Plaintiff; Respondent in HCMP 1730/1999: Leung Yee; 2nd Plaintiff: Ng Yuk Kin; 1st Defendant; Applicant in HCMP 1730/1999: Ng Yiu Ming; 2nd Defendant: Chiu Fung Yee
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 2000
Case Number
HCMP1730/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil: Consolidated Action (partnership Dispute and Trade Mark Rectification) / Interlocutory Application Decided in Chambers (summons for Extension of Time to Comply With Consent Order)
Outcome
Application granted: extension of time to comply with further undertaking; costs awarded to defendants but not on indemnity basis; certificate for two counsel granted
Legal Topics
Variation of Consent Order, Rectification of Trade Mark Register, Extension of Time, Indemnity Costs, Enforcement of Undertakings
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Trade Marks Equity Costs Variation of Consent Order Rectification of Trade Mark Register Extension of Time +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leung Yee

1st Plaintiff; Respondent in HCMP 1730/1999

Ng Yuk Kin

2nd Plaintiff

Ng Yiu Ming

1st Defendant; Applicant in HCMP 1730/1999

Chiu Fung Yee

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Consolidated Action (partnership Dispute and Trade Mark Rectification) / Interlocutory Application Decided in Chambers (summons for Extension of Time to Comply With Consent Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant an extension of time to perform obligations in a consent order
  2. 2 Whether the "liberty to apply" clause permits varying or working out the terms of a consent order
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs complied with the undertaking or acted in bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a one month extension was granted because the plaintiffs had acted promptly and at expense, the breach was technical (letter sizes), there was no irremediable prejudice to defendants, the liberty to apply permitted working out and enforcement of the consent order, and refusing relief would unjustly enrich the defendants; indemnity costs were not justified.

Court Disposition

Application granted: extension of time to comply with further undertaking; costs awarded to defendants but not on indemnity basis; certificate for two counsel granted

Orders

  • Time for compliance with the Further Undertaking by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff in HCA 7462 of 1998 and the Respondent in HCMP 1730 of 1999 extended to one month from the date of this order
  • Costs of the application to the Defendants, to be taxed if not agreed