Tsit Wing (Hong Kong) Co Ltd and Others v. Twg Tea Company Pte Ltd and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCA 2210/2011 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 September 2013.

1. On 30 August 2013, I handed down a decision in which rulings were made in respect of the format of the judgment to be sealed, following the handing down of reasons for decision on 24 July 2013. Now one further issue in respect of the format of the judgment has arisen and the solicitors for the parties have addressed me by way of written submissions in letters.

Cited by 14 cases

Case No.HCA 2210/2011
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 Sep 2013
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 2210/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2210 OF 2011

____________

BETWEEN

  TSIT WING (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED 1st Plaintiff
  TSIT WING INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  TSIT WING COFFEE COMPANY LIMITED 3rd Plaintiff
  TW CAFÉ LIMITED 4th Plaintiff
 

and

 
  TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD 1st Defendant
  TWG TEA (HK) COMPANY LTD 2nd Defendant

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Saunders in Court
Last Date of Written Submissions: 9 September 2013
Date of Decision: 17 September 2013

__________

R U L I N G

__________

1.On 30 August 2013, I handed down a decision in which rulings were made in respect of the format of the judgment to be sealed, following the handing down of reasons for decision on 24 July 2013. Now one further issue in respect of the format of the judgment has arisen and the solicitors for the parties have addressed me by way of written submissions in letters.

2.I accept Clifford Chance’s submission, and Deacons agree, that for consistency, paragraph (5) of the approved judgment should provide that the time for compliance with the requirements of that paragraph should be in accord with that in paragraph (6), and should not be shorter than the time for complying with paragraph (6) itself.

3.Accordingly, the requirement in paragraph (5) shall read: “within 60 days from 30 August 2013”.  The requirement to make an affidavit contained in paragraph (6) shall be: “within 14 days after each of them have fully complied with Paragraph (5) above”.

4.There will be no order for costs in respect of the matters giving rise to this decision.

(John Saunders)
Deputy High Court Judge

Messrs Deacons, for the plaintiffs

Messrs Clifford Chance, for the defendants