Beecham Group Ltd v. Bristol Myers Co and Others

CACV000051/1967

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 1967.

(On Appeal from O.J. Action No. 828 of 1967)

Coram: W.A. Blair-Kerr, Puisne Judge

Date of Judgment: 13 January 1968

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. On 24th November 1967, Mills-Owens J. made an interim order that the defendants be restrained from selling, supplying etc. a certain drug until the trial of the action. The defendants are appealing to the Full Court from this decision and the appeal has been fixed for hearing on 19th/23rd February 1968.

2. This is an application by the plaintiffs (respondents) that the hearing of the appeal be postponed till the first week in April 1968. The reasons advanced in support of the application are these: that the subject matter of the action is highly complicated and technical and that the plaintiffs have briefed two English counsel who specialise in patent law; that these counsel made the application before Mills-Owens J. in November; that other actions between the parties involving the same subject matter have been or are being fought in other territories and these same two English counsel have been briefed to conduct proceedings in England and in Singapore; that it would be in the interests of justice that these two particular counsel should appear on the appeal to the Full Court in Hong Kong, but that they are unable to come to Hong Kong in February; that they are coming to Singapore to conduct proceedings before the courts in that territory on 23rd March and if the hearing of the Hong Kong appeal is postponed to 1st April or thereabouts, the English counsel could come up from Singapore at the conclusion of the proceedings there.

3. The application for postponement is strenuously opposed by the defendants who argue that no sufficient reason has been made out for ordering a postponement of the appeal.

4. It seems to me that the defendants' objection is well-founded. This court usually endeavours to accommodate counsel resident in Hong Kong if it possibly can; but there are far too many unknown factors in this case. I do not even know that the first week in April is convenient to the plaintiffs' counsel. I have no idea how long the hearing in Singapore will last, or whether the court there may grant an adjournment. Supposing, on the 30th March we are informed that the Singapore court has had to adjourn to 20th April and that the hearing is estimated to last a further week at least.

5. We have able barristers in Hong Kong who are perfectly capable of presenting the plaintiffs' case on appeal. If the plaintiffs feel that they must have English counsel, then they will have to brief someone else. The work of this court cannot be held up for the convenience of counsel not resident in Hong Kong.

6. The application is refused.

13th January, 1968.

Representation:

C. ...(illegible) (Wilkinson & Grist) for the Plaintiff.

H. ...(illegible) of Johnson Stokes & Master for the Defendants.