Jacques Farel Ltd v. Hong Kong Development Co

Case No.CACV 127/1990

Court

Court of Appeal

Date16 Nov 1990

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACV000127/1990

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	1990, No. 127
	(Civil)

BETWEEN

JACQUES FAREL LIMITED

Plaintiff
(Respondent)

AND

HONG KONG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Defendant
(Appellant)

-----------

Coram: Hon. Sir Derek Cons, VP, Fuad, VP & Clough, JA

Date of Hearing: 16 November 1990

Date of Judgment: 16 November 1990

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

JUDGMENT

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

Sir Derek Cons VP delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. This appeal arises from a claim by the plaintiff for breach of copyright in art work relating to the design of particular watches and watch straps.

2. On 26th June this year Mayo, J., in ex parte proceedings prior to the issue of the writ, granted orders in forms common in such circumstances. The inter partes summons came before wong, J. on 3rd July. It was agreed that the hearing should be adjourned so that the substance of the matter could be properly dealt with on both sides. By then, of course, the Anton Piller, the delivery up and the disclosure aspects of Mayo, J.'s order had already been spent.

3. No objection was taken to the continuance of the general injunction, but the defendant asked for the gag order to be removed, i.e. the order which prevented him from informing any third party, other than his own legal advisors, of the existence of the subject matter of the action, of the order or of the proceedings generally against him. Wong, J. decided that the gag order should continue until the hearing of the summons. It is against that decision that this appeal is brought.

4. Today we are asked by Mr. Chain, who appears for the appellant, and with the consent of the respondent, to vary the order to the extent of allowing communication with a particular third party, which we are pleased to do. That will require us to allow the appeal by consent, a course which this Court will very rarely take. But we are content to do so in this particular instance because the variation which we are now asked to make was not suggested to the judge below. He was asked to decide only between all or nothing.

5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order below varied and with costs as set out in the document marked "Consent Summons" (in which it is phrased as a consent to dismissal) dated the 14th November and which has been handed in to this Court.

(Sir Derek Cons)	(K.T. Fuad)	(P.G. Clough)
Vice President	Vice President	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Plaintiff/Respondent - absent

Mr. Benjamin Chain (M/s. King & Co.) for Defendant/Appellant