MUGINOHO CO., LTD v. VIMIU HK CO., LTD

HCMP 107/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 107 OF 2012

____________

BETWEEN

____________

____________

D E C I S I O N

____________

1.  The defendant raised two points. The first one is the lack of urgency because the plaintiff has not acted with a sufficient sense of despatch. I do not agree that the plaintiff has delayed the matter to the extent of showing no urgency. I think the plaintiff could have acted faster, but the delay is not a serious one. I would therefore adopt a middle of the road approach. Since the defendant is willing to expedite its affidavit in opposition, I direct that the defendant shall file and serve its affidavit within 14 days from today and the plaintiff shall file the affidavits in reply within seven days thereafter. The interpartes summons is adjourned to the summons judge on 17 February 2012.

2.  The second point is the defendant’s willingness to arbitrate.  I think that is a good sign that there will be little delay in the Japanese arbitration proceedings, but it does not affect the order I am going to make. 

3.  Bearing in mind that the interpartes summons will be heard soon, I do not want to make any order in respect of the defendant’s conduct and dealings with the sub-franchisees that have stopped operating in the Beard Papa mode of business.  The defendant can continue to deal with these franchisees in the new form of business until the hearing of the interpartes summons.

4.  However, I do grant an interim injunction in terms of the draft order in relation to the defendant’s dealing with the sub-franchise shops that are still operating in the Beard Papa mode of business or any new sub‑franchisee or outlet of the defendant which shall last until 17 February 2012 or further order.

5.  I reserve the costs of today.