24 Dec 2025
The summons for default judgment was dismissed because the mandatory injunction was drafted imprecisely and therefore unenforceable, the permanent injunction sought was wider than necessary and inappropriate under equitable principles, and there was a real risk that service was irregular as the defendant's flat was occupied by a tenant, making default judgment unsafe.
19 Dec 2025
On the pleaded facts, which in absence of defence are deemed admitted, plaintiff established ownership of the registered marks and goodwill, defendant's company name used "Juhuasuan"/"聚划算" in trade so as to be similar to the marks and likely to cause confusion and take advantage of well-known marks, and the elements of passing off were met; therefore default judgment and the permanent and consequential injunctive and ancillary orders sought were justified.
3 Mar 2025
The court refused to enter final or interlocutory judgment because the plaintiff's pleaded case was shadowy and insufficiently particularised, there was no clear evidence of the plaintiff's existence or of service of the Summons, and the plaintiff's representative could not satisfactorily explain the case; accordingly the appropriate course was to adjourn the Summons sine die with liberty to restore and permit both parties to file affidavit evidence rather than enter judgment in the defendant's absence.
14 Feb 2025
Service on 12/5/2023 was effected on the defendant while physically present in Hong Kong making jurisdiction proper; the defendant failed to follow required procedural steps to challenge jurisdiction or admit fresh evidence; therefore the asserted grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was denied.
30 Dec 2024
On the pleadings the plaintiff established a common intention constructive trust due to a clear common intention and detrimental reliance (sole payment of mortgage and expenses) and it would be unconscionable for the defendant to deny the plaintiff's beneficial interest; service was validly effected under the substituted service order and the defendant defaulted, therefore the court in its discretion entered default judgment granting a declaration of constructive trust, an order for transfer, permanent injunctive relief, assessment of damages and costs.
11 Apr 2017
The family court orders and the transfer dated 1 November 2014 vested the parking space in the plaintiff; the defendant continued wrongful occupation after that date; given the continuation of occupation and defendant's refusal to vacate, the District Court has jurisdiction under DCO s35 and s32 to grant a permanent injunction, award occupation fees (HK$2,400/month) with interest from 12 January 2016, daily fees from 7 April 2017 until vacation, and order costs against the defendant.
4 Nov 2016
On the evidence and on the balance of probabilities the court found that the defendants repeatedly entered the plaintiff's private business premises and, by refusing to leave when asked, engaged in unlawful trespass and conduct amounting to harassment; the second and third defendants were acting as agents of the first defendant based on recordings, conduct and admissions; accordingly a permanent injunction protecting all plaintiff business premises was warranted and the plaintiff was entitled to damages of HKD50,000 (general) and HKD30,000 (punitive) and costs.
29 Jan 2014
A permanent injunction should not have been granted by way of summary judgment where there are genuine disputed facts (including whether the defendant's use was authorised or constituted a nuisance); the summary judgment was set aside and the defendant awarded costs.
21 Apr 2009
The defendant failed to rebut the prima facie case of trademark infringement and, being best placed to explain the genuineness of the fasteners, its reliance on peripheral post-incident advertisements was insufficient; accordingly summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs and the full suite of injunctive and ancillary relief (delivery up, discovery, account/enquiry, interest and specified costs) was appropriate.
26 Oct 2006
The court treated the grant of a permanent injunction as constituting judgment on liability, exercised O.20 r.11 to amend the costs order to award the plaintiff party-and-party costs up to 4 July (with 10% of the costs of 4 July to form part of the action costs and 90% to remain costs in the inquiry), and refused to make other amendments sought as beyond the scope of the rule and requiring appeal or further proceedings.