LEADERS COSMETICS CO, LTD (formerly known as SANSUNG LIFE & SCIENCE JOOSIKHOESA and also known as SANSUNG LIFE & SCIENCE CO, LTD) v. LEGEND HK PHARMACY LTD

HCA 2540/2017
HCA 2626/2017
HCA 2627/2017

[2021] HKCFI 1511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2540 OF 2017

______________________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2626 OF 2017

______________________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2627 OF 2017

______________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  There are before me three summonses for summary judgment in three proceedings, namely HCA 2540/2017, 2626/2017, 2627/2017.  The summonses were taken out by the plaintiff in each of those actions on 22 March 2021 and returnable before me on 3 May at 9.30 am.  At that hearing, none of the defendants were represented either by solicitors or through their directors, so I adjourned the matter to be heard before me substantively on today’s date at 10 am so that written submissions could be filed together with relevant authorities, to satisfy the court that summary judgment in the form proposed should be granted.

2.  Having had the benefit of very helpful and thorough written submissions as well as oral submissions from Mr Norman Hui, who appeared for the plaintiff in each of those actions, I made an order in the terms of the draft which was prepared and submitted before me which I append to these brief reasons.

3.  I should first note that summary judgment in matters concerning intellectual property cases are no different from other cases.  It is useful to refer to what Andrew Cheung J (as the Hon. Chief Justice then was) in Tai Shing Diary v Maersk Hong Kong Limited & Ors [2007] 2 HKC:

“Preliminary observations on Order 14 applications

11. First, in an Order 14 application, the touchstone is whether the defendant has an arguable defence. In exceptional cases, if there is some other reason which justifies the holding of a trial, leave to defend may be given.

12. Second, the law and practice relating to applications for summary judgment in intellectual properties cases are no different from that in other cases. The court is no more and no less willing, or, looking at it from another angle, reluctant, to examine the materials to see whether there is an arguable defence or any other reason for trial. On the one hand, the court will not conduct a mini-trial on affidavit evidence. On the other, generally speaking, the court will not be daunted by the sheer amount of materials filed or the number of supposed issues raised by the defendant from granting summary judgment if, upon examination, they disclose no triable issue or any other reason for trial.

13. Third, the burden is on the defendant to show an arguable case or some other reason for trial. The defendant must condescend upon particulars of his claimed defence…

15. Macmillan Publishers Ltd v Thomas Reed Publications Ltd [1993] FSR 455 is a neat illustration of the court’s willingness to examine the questions of originality and infringement in an Order 14 application and to grant a final injunction against the defendant after concluding that the evidence placed before the court did not disclose any triable issue in relation to those matters. See also Yuen Chuk v Muhammad, HCA 14695/1998, Cheung J (7 May 1999). Many of the cases cited in this judgment provide further examples of the courts’ approach.

16.  Equally, there are many cases in the law reports where such applications for summary judgment failed, because the courts found that the question of originality or infringement, on the facts of the cases, could not be summarily deposed of on affidavits.  These cases – and many of them have been cited to me during argument – are no more than illustrations of the basic principle that if a defendant is able to demonstrate a triable issue or any other reason for trial, no summary judgment should be granted, and vice versa.  Copyright infringement cases do not constitute an exceptional category of its own.”

4.  In all three statements of claim that were amended, it was set out in brief that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Korea, and that since at least 2004 it had either directly or through a subsidiary, conducted business in the development, manufacture and sale of cosmetics and beauty products bearing and marketed under one or more of the registered trademarks which were particularised and set out in the schedule to the statement of claim and particularly trademarks containing the house mark “LEADERS” such as “LEADERS INSOLUTION”, “LEADERS STEP SOLUTION” and “LEADERS MEDIU”.

5.  The plaintiff’s product ranges offered for sale and sold in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and elsewhere include a popular range of moisturising beauty masks for the face, which have been sold through third-party retail outlets such as beauty shops and pharmacies and, to some lesser extent, the Internet. 

6.  The plaintiff’s case is that its beauty masks have been extensively and continuously available to the general public in Hong Kong through such outlets since at least late 2013.  The plaintiff’s beauty masks have at all material times been offered for sale under and by reference to trademark number 302937592.  The turnover has increased from approximately US$235,000 in 2013 to almost US$1 million in 2017.  Those figures represent the aggregate wholesale price of the said mask products but exclude those that were distributed in Hong Kong other than through the official distributor.

7.  It is the plaintiff’s case that it has, in combination with its use of the registered mark, extensively and continuously offered for sale and sold the said beauty masks in Hong Kong SAR in a particular type of blue/white packaging, namely the “Amino Moisture” mark, the get-up and general appearance of which are exclusively distinctive of it, including the name/mark “LEADERS”, the unregistered mark “MEDIU” and “Red Squares” device.  For those reasons, the plaintiff says it has acquired substantial and valuable reputation and goodwill in the Hong Kong SAR associated with the said trademarks.

8.  The plaintiff further states that it was at the material times the owner of copyrights existing in the original artistic and literary works in the packaging of its beauty masks, as further set out in detail in the statements of claim.

9.  The plaintiff’s position in each of those actions was that it found its intellectual property rights in Hong Kong being infringed both under the laws of trademarks, passing off and copyright.  Each of the defendants in those cases are said to have infringed the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights by wrongfully offering for sale, possessing in the course of trade, selling, exposing for sale, exhibiting for sale or otherwise infringing the rights of the plaintiff’s “AMINO MOISTURE” product.

10.  The plaintiff further says that in each of those cases the defendants have carried out such infringing acts with knowledge that they had been infringing the plaintiff’s products since the “AMINO MOISTURE” products have been trading significantly in Hong Kong since 2013, that the defendants in these cases are traders in cosmetic and beauty products and therefore, being in the trade, would have known about it.

11.  I note that the discovery of the infringing products came at approximately the same, albeit not exactly at the same time nor on the same occasions, but since nothing turns on it, I do not need to set this out in detail.

12.  The only substantial defence advanced by the defendants in each of those cases, who I note were represented at the time by the same firm of solicitors (who specialise in intellectual property cases) was essentially that the goods were parallel imports and therefore effectively authorised by the plaintiff.  The chain of supply in each of those cases is not identical, but again, this does not matter for present purposes. 

13.  Having regard to the principles set out above, the question is whether the defendant in each of these proceedings has demonstrated by evidence (and there is not any) or by their pleaded case or by any other means a triable defence.

14.  Given the nature of the defence advanced by the defendants, the plaintiff has made very careful and detailed comparison between the genuine products and those which were thought to have infringed its intellectual property and, after both an internal examination and an external one, which involved the well-known Bureau Veritas CPS Korea Limited, both conclusively demonstrated that those products could not have been genuine products.

15.  I should mention for present purposes, as I came to a firm view that no triable issue had been demonstrated, I did not rely nor see the need to rely on (1) there having been a successful prosecution and conviction of one of the entities involved in the chain of supply of these products and (2) the fact that a purported letter of authorisation which was dated 3 August 2017 and bore a partial but inaccurate letterhead of the plaintiff (which turns out was counterfeited) had been allegedly issued by one of the parties in the supply chain to another.

16.  On the evidence and the pleadings before me, I conclude that no triable issue has been demonstrated and I therefore made an order in terms of the draft submitted. 

17.  Having regard to the non-participation of the defendants in each of these actions, I also consider it appropriate and cost-effective to assess on a gross sum basis the costs of the entire proceedings in each of those actions.  

18.  For this purpose, I have considered the three statements of costs for summary assessment before me which are broadly similar for obvious reasons.  It is recognised that such an exercise is to be conducted on a broad-brush basis.  I will assess on a party and party basis costs of HK$270,000 for each of those proceedings. 

HCA 2627/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2627 OF 2017

__________________

BEFORE DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE MAURELLET, SC IN CHAMBERS

ORDER

UPON the application of the Solicitors for the Plaintiff by way of Summons filed on 22^nd March 2021.

AND UPON reading the Affidavit of Yoon Hoseon filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affirmation of Kim Jeong Bae filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affidavit of Hui Siu King filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affidavit of Ho Shun Choi filed herein on 28^th April 2021 and the Affirmation of Kwok Ka Kin filed herein on 14^th May 2021.

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant being absent.

IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the following terms:-

1.     An injunction to restrain the Defendant, whether acting by itself, its directors, officers, employees, servants or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever, from doing the following acts or any of them:-

(a)  passing-off or attempting to pass off, threatening to pass off, or causing enabling or assisting others to pass off its products, namely cosmetics and beauty products, including beauty masks, not being the products of the Plaintiff, as and for the products of the Plaintiff by the use in connection therewith of the trade mark   and/or the device mark   and/or “LEADERS” and/or “MEDIU” and/or packaging and/or any other mark that is confusingly or deceptively similar to those used by the Plaintiff, or by any other means;

(b)  infringing the Plaintiff’s Hong Kong Trade Marks Nos. 301611819, 302250909, 302937592, 302937600, 303404727 and 303896803 or any of them;

(c)  infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright subsisting in the Plaintiff’s Copyright Works as defined in the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim filed on 6^th January 2021 or any of them; and

(d)  authorizing such acts.

2.     The Defendant do, within 14 days from the date of the service of this Order upon it, delivery up to the Plaintiff’s solicitors for free destruction and disposal by the Plaintiff all and any products and articles including all and any cosmetic products, beauty masks, business stationery, packaging, promotional materials, labels, tools, moulds, dies, casts, plates, silkscreens, computer programs, films, stamps, chops and seals (“the Offending Items”) in the possession, custody, power or control of the Defendant the continued use, sale, supply, retention, possession, disposal and/or otherwise howsoever dealing in or with which by the Defendant, whether acting by itself, its directors, officers, employees, servants or agents or any of them, would offend against the foregoing injunctions, and that the Defendant do, within 21 days from the date of service of this Order upon it, by a director, make and file an affidavit or affirmation and serve a copy thereof on the Plaintiff’s solicitors verifying that the Defendant has complied with this paragraph and that it no longer has in its possession, power, custody or control any of the Offending Items.

3.     The Defendant do, within 21 days from the service of this Order upon it, by a director, make and file an affidavit or affirmation and serve a copy thereof on the Plaintiff’s solicitors setting forth the names and addresses of all persons, firms or companies:-

(a)  to whom the Defendant has sold and/or supplied and/or offered to sell and/or supply;

(b)  from whom the Defendant has ordered, purchased and/or obtained supplies of;

(c)  who have offered to sell and/or supply to the Defendant; and

(d)  who have ordered from the Defendant

all and any products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles of the types referred to in paragraph 2 above and do disclose in the said affidavit or affirmation the exact whereabouts anywhere in the world of any person, firm or company known or believed by the Defendant to be in possession of any such products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles and further do exhibit to such affidavit or affirmation true copies of all and any invoices and other commercial documents relating to the aforesaid acts that are sufficient to show that names and addresses of all relevant suppliers and manufacturers, and the quantities and prices of the items purchased, sold and otherwise traded in or with, in respect of each type of the products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles referred to above.

4.     The Plaintiff be at liberty to elect between an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits in respect of the Defendant’s acts of passing-off, trademark infringement and copyright infringement after the Defendant has fully complied with the aforesaid paragraphs.

5.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff any additional damages in accordance with section 108 of the Copyright Ordinance, Cap.528, Laws of Hong Kong to the Plaintiff to be awarded.

6.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff all sums found due upon the taking of enquiry or account pursuant to the aforesaid paragraphs.

7.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff an interest upon such sum at such rate(s) for such period(s) as this Honourable Court shall deem fit pursuant to Section 48 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4) and/or the equitable jurisdiction of the Court.

8.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with costs of this application and all costs reserved to the Plaintiff, summarily assessed at HK$270,000.

9.     The security for the Defendant’s costs paid by the Plaintiff into Court pursuant to the Order made by Master K W Wong dated 12^th January 2018 in the amount of HK$100,000 be returned to the Plaintiff.

Dated the 20^th day of May 2021

HCA 2627/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2627 OF 2017

___________

____________________________________________________________

ORDER

____________________________________________________________

FAIRBAIRN CATLEY LOW & KONG
Solicitors for the Plaintiff
23^RD FLOOR, SHUI ON CENTRE,
6 – 8 HARBOUR ROAD,
HONG KONG
Tel: 2522 2041/2525 9161
Fax: 2845 9282/2845 2928
Ref: 1850337/18/GHWC/HSKP
(Registry Box No. 169)

HCA 2626/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2626 OF 2017

__________________

BEFORE DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE MAURELLET, SC IN CHAMBERS

ORDER

UPON the application of the Solicitors for the Plaintiff by way of Summons filed on 22^nd March 2021.

AND UPON reading the Affidavit of Yoon Hoseon filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affirmation of Kim Jeong Bae filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affidavit of Hui Siu King filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affidavit of Ho Shun Choi filed herein on 28^th April 2021 and the Affirmation of Cheng Siu Fun filed herein on 14^th May 2021.

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant being absent.

IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the following terms:-

1.     An injunction to restrain the Defendant, whether acting by himself, his partners, officers, employees, servants or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever, from doing the following acts or any of them:-

(a)  passing-off or attempting to pass off, threatening to pass off, or causing enabling or assisting others to pass off its products, namely cosmetics and beauty products, including beauty masks, not being the products of the Plaintiff, as and for the products of the Plaintiff by the use in connection therewith of the trade mark   and/or the device mark   and/or “LEADERS” and/or “MEDIU” and/or packaging and/or any other mark that is confusingly or deceptively similar to those used by the Plaintiff, or by any other means;

(b)  infringing the Plaintiff’s Hong Kong Trade Marks Nos. 301611819, 302250909, 302937592, 302937600, 303404727 and 303896803 or any of them;

(c)  infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright subsisting in the Plaintiff’s Copyright Works as defined in the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim filed on 6^th January 2021 or any of them; and

(d)  authorizing such acts.

2.     The Defendant do, within 14 days from the date of the service of this Order upon him, delivery up to the Plaintiff’s solicitors for free destruction and disposal by the Plaintiff all and any products and articles including all and any cosmetic products, beauty masks, business stationery, packaging, promotional materials, labels, tools, moulds, dies, casts, plates, silkscreens, computer programs, films, stamps, chops and seals (“the Offending Items”) in the possession, custody, power or control of the Defendant the continued use, sale, supply, retention, possession, disposal and/or otherwise howsoever dealing in or with which by the Defendant, whether acting by himself, his partners, officers, employees, servants or agents or any of them, would offend against the foregoing injunctions, and that the Defendant do, within 21 days from the date of service of this Order upon him, make and file an affidavit or affirmation and serve a copy thereof on the Plaintiff’s solicitors verifying that the Defendant has complied with this paragraph and that he no longer has in his possession, power, custody or control any of the Offending Items.

3.     The Defendant do, within 21 days from the service of this Order upon him, make and file an affidavit or affirmation and serve a copy thereof on the Plaintiff’s solicitors setting forth the names and addresses of all persons, firms or companies:-

(a)  to whom the Defendant has sold and/or supplied and/or offered to sell and/or supply;

(b)  from whom the Defendant has ordered, purchased and/or obtained supplies of;

(c)  who have offered to sell and/or supply to the Defendant; and

(d)  who have ordered from the Defendant

all and any products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles of the types referred to in paragraph 2 above and do disclose in the said affidavit or affirmation the exact whereabouts anywhere in the world of any person, firm or company known or believed by the Defendant to be in possession of any such products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles and further do exhibit to such affidavit or affirmation true copies of all and any invoices and other commercial documents relating to the aforesaid acts that are sufficient to show that names and addresses of all relevant suppliers and manufacturers, and the quantities and prices of the items purchased, sold and otherwise traded in or with, in respect of each type of the products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles referred to above.

4.     The Plaintiff be at liberty to elect between an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits in respect of the Defendant’s acts of passing-off, trademark infringement and copyright infringement after the Defendant has fully complied with the aforesaid paragraphs.

5.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff any additional damages in accordance with section 108 of the Copyright Ordinance, Cap.528, Laws of Hong Kong to the Plaintiff to be awarded.

6.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff all sums found due upon the taking of enquiry or account pursuant to the aforesaid paragraphs.

7.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff an interest upon such sum at such rate(s) for such period(s) as this Honourable Court shall deem fit pursuant to Section 48 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4) and/or the equitable jurisdiction of the Court.

8.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with costs of this application and all costs reserved to the Plaintiff, summarily assessed at HK$270,000.

9.     The security for the Defendant’s costs paid by the Plaintiff into Court pursuant to the Order made by Master K W Wong dated 12^th January 2018 in the amount of HK$100,000 be returned to the Plaintiff.

Dated the 20^th day of May 2021

HCA 2626/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2626 OF 2017

___________

_________________________________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________________________________

 

FAIRBAIRN CATLEY LOW & KONG
Solicitors for the Plaintiff
23^RD FLOOR, SHUI ON CENTRE,
6 – 8 HARBOUR ROAD,
HONG KONG
Tel: 2522 2041/2525 9161 
Fax: 2845 9282/2845 2928
Ref: 1850325/18/GHWC/HSKP
(Registry Box No. 169)

HCA 2540 /2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2540 OF 2017

__________________

BEFORE DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE MAURELLET, SC IN CHAMBERS

ORDER

UPON the application of the Solicitors for the Plaintiff by way of Summons filed on 22^nd March 2021.

AND UPON reading the Affidavit of Yoon Hoseon filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affirmation of Kim Jeong Bae filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affidavit of Hui Siu King filed herein on 22^nd March 2021 together with the exhibits referred to therein, the Affidavit of Ho Shun Choi filed herein on 28^th April 2021 and the Affirmation of Kwok Ka Kin filed herein on 14^th May 2021.

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant being absent.

IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the following terms:-

1.     An injunction to restrain the Defendant, whether acting by itself, its directors, officers, employees, servants or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever, from doing the following acts or any of them:-

(a)  passing-off or attempting to pass off, threatening to pass off, or causing enabling or assisting others to pass off its products, namely cosmetics and beauty products, including beauty masks, not being the products of the Plaintiff, as and for the products of the Plaintiff by the use in connection therewith of the trade mark   and/or the device mark   and/or “LEADERS” and/or “MEDIU” and/or packaging and/or any other mark that is confusingly or deceptively similar to those used by the Plaintiff, or by any other means;

(b)  infringing the Plaintiff’s Hong Kong Trade Marks Nos. 301611819, 302250909, 302937592, 302937600, 303404727 and 303896803 or any of them;

(c)  infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright subsisting in the Plaintiff’s Copyright Works as defined in the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim filed on 6^th January 2021 or any of them; and

(d)  authorizing such acts.

2.     The Defendant do, within 14 days from the date of the service of this Order upon it, delivery up to the Plaintiff’s solicitors for free destruction and disposal by the Plaintiff all and any products and articles including all and any cosmetic products, beauty masks, business stationery, packaging, promotional materials, labels, tools, moulds, dies, casts, plates, silkscreens, computer programs, films, stamps, chops and seals (“the Offending Items”) in the possession, custody, power or control of the Defendant the continued use, sale, supply, retention, possession, disposal and/or otherwise howsoever dealing in or with which by the Defendant, whether acting by itself, its directors, officers, employees, servants or agents or any of them, would offend against the foregoing injunctions, and that the Defendant do, within 21 days from the date of service of this Order upon it, by a director, make and file an affidavit or affirmation and serve a copy thereof on the Plaintiff’s solicitors verifying that the Defendant has complied with this paragraph and that it no longer has in its possession, power, custody or control any of the Offending Items.

3.     The Defendant do, within 21 days from the service of this Order upon it, by a director, make and file an affidavit or affirmation and serve a copy thereof on the Plaintiff’s solicitors setting forth the names and addresses of all persons, firms or companies:-

(a)  to whom the Defendant has sold and/or supplied and/or offered to sell and/or supply;

(b)  from whom the Defendant has ordered, purchased and/or obtained supplies of;

(c)  who have offered to sell and/or supply to the Defendant; and

(d)  who have ordered from the Defendant

all and any products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles of the types referred to in paragraph 2 above and do disclose in the said affidavit or affirmation the exact whereabouts anywhere in the world of any person, firm or company known or believed by the Defendant to be in possession of any such products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles and further do exhibit to such affidavit or affirmation true copies of all and any invoices and other commercial documents relating to the aforesaid acts that are sufficient to show that names and addresses of all relevant suppliers and manufacturers, and the quantities and prices of the items purchased, sold and otherwise traded in or with, in respect of each type of the products, including cosmetic products and beauty masks, and other articles referred to above.

4.     The Plaintiff be at liberty to elect between an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits in respect of the Defendant’s acts of passing-off, trademark infringement and copyright infringement after the Defendant has fully complied with the aforesaid paragraphs.

5.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff any additional damages in accordance with section 108 of the Copyright Ordinance, Cap.528, Laws of Hong Kong to the Plaintiff to be awarded.

6.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff all sums found due upon the taking of enquiry or account pursuant to the aforesaid paragraphs.

7.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff an interest upon such sum at such rate(s) for such period(s) as this Honourable Court shall deem fit pursuant to Section 48 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4) and/or the equitable jurisdiction of the Court.

8.     The Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this action, together with costs of this application and all costs reserved to the Plaintiff, summarily assessed at HK$270,000.

9.     The security for the Defendant’s costs paid by the Plaintiff into Court pursuant to the Order made by Master K W Wong dated 12^th January 2018 in the amount of HK$100,000 be returned to the Plaintiff.

Dated the 20^th day of May 2021

HCA 2540 /2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2540 OF 2017

___________

_________________________________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________________________________

FAIRBAIRN CATLEY LOW & KONG
Solicitors for the Plaintiff
23^RD FLOOR, SHUI ON CENTRE,
6 – 8 HARBOUR ROAD,
HONG KONG
Tel: 2522 2041/2525 9161 
Fax: 2845 9282/2845 2928
Ref: 1850295/18/GHWC/HSKP
(Registry Box No. 169)