Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Anton piller

  • 21 Feb 2003

    CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LTD v. VIDEOCOM TECHNOLOGY LTD

    Citation
    CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LTD v. VIDEOCOM TECHNOLOGY LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1434/2002

    There was no bona fide defence: unchallenged documentary and sample evidence (invoices bearing SCCRE001080, counterfeit sample examinations, the 2nd defendant's quotation) and implausible denials meant no real prospect of trial. The defendants were inferentially acting in common design. Therefore summary judgment was entered for passing off and trademark infringement and injunctive and ancillary relief (discovery, delivery up, enquiry as to damages) was granted.

  • 7 Jul 2001

    MINTON OPTIC INDUSTRY CO. LTD. v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    MINTON OPTIC INDUSTRY CO. LTD. v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA9619/2000

    The ex parte Mareva injunctions were discharged because the plaintiffs breached critical undertakings (not procuring the HK$6,000,000 bank guarantee and failing to serve supporting materials promptly), made material misstatements and non-disclosures in ex parte proceedings (including incorrect assertions about an existing judgment debt and timing of resignations), and failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets to justify fresh Mareva injunctions; accordingly the interlocutory relief could not be maintained.

  • 7 Oct 1989

    CHOW WAI LAN v. CHEUNG SIU FONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHOW WAI LAN v. CHEUNG SIU FONG AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA5218/1989

    The court held that tracing orders in aid of a Mareva do not demand a higher standard of proof than the Mareva itself; the plaintiff had established a good arguable case, shown a real risk of dissipation and demonstrated exceptional circumstances (substantial claim, inadequate disclosed local assets and likelihood of foreign dealings), therefore a worldwide Mareva and ancillary tracing/disclosure orders should continue; the defendants' summons to discharge the orders was dismissed but limited time extensions for compliance were granted and the prohibitory order was extended for six weeks.