M.G.X. ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHINA WAY GLOBAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 2001/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2001 OF 2013

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

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

D E C I S I O N   O N   C O S T S   A N D   D I R E C T I O N S

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

1.  Pursuant to the directions of this court, written submissions have been filed by the parties on the appropriate terms of the order to be made, including those for costs, as a result of the decision dated 12 February 2014 (“Decision”). Further, the parties are in substantial agreement on the directions to be made by the court for the purpose of expediting the preparation for the trial of this action. For that purpose, this court has received a letter from Ps’ solicitors dated 19 February 2014, enclosing therewith, inter alia, a letter of Ds’ solicitors of even date and a Proposed Joint Directions (“PJD”). The nomenclature employed in the Decision is adopted herein.

Consequential order

2.  The disagreement between the parties only concerns costs.  I make an order in terms of paras 2(1) and (2) of Ps’ Submissions in respect of the disposal of the injunction application and the Summons, save that Ds’ undertakings were referred to in paras 3, 14 and 19 of the Decision.  The undertakings referred to in paras 3 and 14 of the Decision have been agreed.

3.  As regards costs, I am persuaded to accept Ps’ proposals as per paras 3(1) to (4) of their Submissions as being reasonable and better reflection of the justice of the case.  In particular, the merits of this case have not been adjudicated upon.  Ps are right to say that on the crucial issue to be tried in this case, namely, who was the author of the lock design drawings and owner of the copyright in them, Ds certainly know where the truth lies.  It would not be just to award them the costs of the hearings of the injunction application if it turns out after trial that a false defence has been advanced. 

4.  I also agree with Ps that some of the costs incurred in the injunction application will not be wasted, eg, the very substantial affidavits can be used in place of witness statements for the trial (which is reflected in the agreed directions). 

5.  In addition, I grant a certificate for 2 counsel in respect of the injunction application.

Directions 

6.  The only disagreement concerns the timing for the filing of amended pleadings. 

7.  Paras 1 and 2 of PJD should be modified as follows:

1. Leave to the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim within 14 days from today;

2. Leave to the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 5^th defendants to file and serve an Amended Defence within 21 days thereafter;

8.  The case management conference as per para 10 of PJD should not take place before the 1^st July 2014.

9.  Save as aforesaid, I make an order in terms of the PJD.