Solid Electronic Industries Ltd v. Appled Electronics Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 139/1984 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. On the 30th December of last year the defendants' solicitors sent a letter to the plaintiffs claiming that their use of a certain Chinese name constituted the tort of passing off their business or some aspect of it as that of the defendants. There by was raised an issue critical to both parties to this litigation an issue particularly critical having regard to the matters to which I shall in a moment advert.
|
HCA000139/1984
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT _____ BETWEEN
_____ Coram: Hon, Kempster, J. Date: 13th January, 1984 _________ DECISION _________ 1. On the 30th December of last year the defendants' solicitors sent a letter to the plaintiffs claiming that their use of a certain Chinese name constituted the tort of passing off their business or some aspect of it as that of the defendants. There by was raised an issue critical to both parties to this litigation an issue particularly critical having regard to the matters to which I shall in a moment advert. 2. On the 9th January 1984 the plaintiffs responded to this letter by commencing proceedings seeking a declaration that they were entitled to carry on business under this Chinese name without infringing any right vested in the defendants. The following day the plaintiffs served a Statement of Claim seeking declarations that. they were entitled to use the name without infringing any right of the defendants and that the defendants had no right to inhibit their use of that name. 3. On the 12th of January of this year a Defence and Counterclaim was served. Thereby the defendants sought an injunction restraining the use by the plaintiffs of this Chinese name. In the meanwhile the defendants had issued the present summons whereby an order was sought for speedy trial of this action; for it to be set down and heard by me on the 30th January next, the estimated time being 3 days, and for directions in the terms of draft minutes annexed to the summons. 4. The urgency arises from the fact that the defendants plan and intend to make a public issue of their shares in mid-March. Having regard to the current state of the stock market it is considered an ideal time for such an issue and I do not think that the propriety of raising venture capital by a share issue is really challenged by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Bridge on behalf of the plaintiffs suggesting that such an issue might redound to the financial advantage of certain of the defendants' shareholders. 5. It appears from yet another fresh affidavit, this time sworn by Mr. Cheyne, solicitor acting on behalf of the defendants, and particularly from paragraphs 6 and 7, that there are real difficulties in proceeding with the floatation while this litigation remains unresolved. 6. In all these circumstances I regard this as, if not a unique, an exceptional case in which it would be proper for me, as is conceded I am entitled to do, to give certain directions for the expeditious resolution of the dispute. I propose to do so:- Reply and Defence to Counterclaim within 10 days. Discovery 14 days thereafter. Inspection 5 days after conclusion of discovery. The action to be set dorm in the Fixture List but not before the expiry of 21 days. I order it so to be set down pursuant to the Practice Direction which has been read to me. There will be liberty to apply. 7. This will allow the defendants, on setting down, to apply to the Chief Justice for an early date for hearing pursuant to R.S.C. O.34 r.4(ii). 8. I should say in conclusion that while the summons referred to O.29 r.5 the condition precedent is not satisfied since no application is made today for an injunction or the appointment of a receiver or for an order under rules 2, 3 or 4.
Representation: P. Garland and R. Bridge (Robin Bridge & John Liu) respectively for plaintiffs Anthony Rogers (Deacons) for defendants |