KARREX (HONG KONG) LTD v. MAIA SABINE WIEST AND ANOTHER

HCA 1725/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1725 OF 2005

____________

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  This is the 2^nd defendant’s application to discharge the ex parte order made on 3 September 2005.

2.  Very briefly, having perused the materials before me and heard the parties’ submissions, I agree with D2 that there was insufficient urgency to justify the ex parte application (or the ex parte order).  Any urgency is in my view caused by delay on the plaintiff’s part to act earlier.  In short, I find that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay.

3.  Paragraph 28 of the plaintiff’s skeleton argument used at the ex parte hearing alleges that the matter was urgent because D2 would start production of the infringing copies.  Although it is strictly unnecessary to make a positive finding for the purposes of this application, the said paragraph 28 is not supported by the plaintiff’s evidence.  In fact, it can even be argued that the assertion is misleading.

4.  Having so concluded, it is unnecessary for me to consider the other matters raised by D2, such as why the ex parte order was drafted as an permanent order.  I only need to observe that Mr Chow for the plaintiff (who did not appear at the ex parte hearing) fairly and correctly concedes that paragraphs 1(iii) to 4 of the ex parte order should not be continued.  He also does not argue against any suggestion that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the ex parte order should not have been sought in the first place.