Read the full judgment text of HCA 010671/1995 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 January 1996 before Rogers J.
Civil practice – interlocutory injunctions – ex parte applications – confidential information – passing off – Anton Piller order – Mareva injunction – material misstatement on ex parte application – discharge of ex parte orders – an Interlocutory Injunction should specify precisely what a Defendant is prohibited from doing and should not be couched in broad terms – an injunction restraining a defendant from 'disclosing ... confidential information and/or trade secrets acquired by the defendant during the defendant's employment' is far too wide to be granted at the interlocutory stage let alone at an ex parte stage and possibly even at trial – similarly an injunction to restrain 'the Defendant passing off ... by selling ... a product not manufactured by the Plaintiff in such manner as to lead to the belief that ... it is manufactured by the Plaintiff' is too wide to be granted at the interlocutory stage – material misstatement in ex parte application as ground for discharge – unlimited Mareva injunctions – Mareva and Anton Piller orders to be confined to most serious cases – fortification of cross-undertaking as to damages – costs on indemnity basis – Whether the ex parte injunctions were too widely framed – whether the word 'TIN BOX' was capable of supporting a passing off claim – whether material misstatement regarding a US trade name case required discharge of ex parte order – whether any further interlocutory relief should be granted – small to medium-sized US wholesaler of decorative tin boxes, 1st Defendant set up rival business while employed and invested in PRC manufacturing facility – Anton Piller yield showed only minimal transactions not establishing passing off – misstatement that a US court had ordered cessation of use of a trade name, when in fact the action had been compromised – failure to disclose 2nd Plaintiff's paid-up capital of $1,000 and lack of reciprocal enforcement between Hong Kong and the US – Mareva injunction used to restrict defendant's choice of representation – Ex parte injunctions, Anton Piller order and Mareva injunction all discharged, no further injunctive relief granted, plaintiffs' application dismissed, defendants awarded costs on an indemnity basis forthwith with certificate for two counsel, inquiry as to damages ordered against plaintiffs, mandatory order restricting use of information obtained under ex parte order.
Legal issues: Whether the ex parte injunctions were too widely framed · Effect of material misstatement on the ex parte order · Whether to grant any further interlocutory relief
Outcome: Ex parte injunctions (confidential information, passing off), Anton Piller order, and unlimited Mareva injunction all discharged. No further injunctive relief granted. Plaintiffs' application for an interlocutory injunction dismissed. Defendants granted costs on an indemnity basis with a certificate for two counsel, forthwith. Inquiry as to damages ordered against the plaintiffs. Mandatory order that the plaintiffs shall not use any information obtained under the ex parte order other than for the purposes of the action.
Cited by 3 cases