Windix Industries Ltd v Telesonic Enterprises Ltd And Another

Court:High Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:HCA1274/2007
Judgment Date:28 Nov 2008
HCA001274/2007 WINDIX INDUSTRIES LTD v. TELESONIC ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

HCA 1274/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1274 OF 2007

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

BETWEEN

WINDIX INDUSTRIES LIMITED Plaintiff
輝年實業有限公司
and
TELESONIC ENTERPRISES LIMITED 1st Defendant
星陶企業(香港)有限公司
SHINFUKU ELECTRONICS (HONG KONG) LIMITED 2nd Defendant
天王星電子(香港)有限公司

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

Before: Hon Suffiad J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 21 November 2008

Date of Ruling: 28 November 2008

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

R U L I N G

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

1. This is an application by the 1st and 2nd defendants for an order that the plaintiff’s Bill of Costs filed on 4 July 2008 be taxed on the District Court scale.

2. That Bill of Costs relates to a costs order made by me on 10 October 2007.

Background

3. The plaintiff issued the Writ in this matter on 4 June 2007 claiming against both defendants for infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright. It was alleged that the defendants have offered for sale one model of an electric clock which were copied from the plaintiff’s drawings, the copyright of which belonged to the plaintiff.

4. The Statement of Claim was filed on 3 July 2007.

5. On 20 July 2007, after the defendants have made certain disclosure on affidavit, the plaintiff by letter offered to settle the claim against the defendants at $100,000.

6. On 10 October 2007, the parties came before me when injunction and damages orders were made against the defendants. It was also ordered that “the defendants do pay to the plaintiff the costs of and incidental to this Action, including the costs of and incidental to this application, such costs to be taxed, if not agreed.” That is the costs order, the subject of this application.

7. After three earlier payment-ins to court made by the defendants, on 19 December 2007, the defendants made a fourth payment-in to court bringing the total amount paid into court to $100,000.

8. On 4 July 2008, the plaintiff applied for leave to accept the total amount paid into court by the defendants in settlement of the order for damages against the defendants.

9. On 11 July 2008, leave was granted to the plaintiff by the Master to accept the total amount paid into court. The Master also ordered the costs incurred after 19 December 2007 (being the date of the last payment-in) to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The defendants’ application

10. In this application the defendants submit that since the plaintiff offered in its letter of 20 July 2007 to settle at $100,000 and have now accepted the amount of $100,000 paid into court by the defendants in full settlement of the order for damages made against the defendants, the costs order made against the defendants on 10 October 2007 should be on the District Court scale. If the plaintiff seek for that costs order to be taxed on the High Court scale, it is for the plaintiff to justify why at the time the Writ was issued, the plaintiff was entitled to start these proceedings in the High Court.

11. Relying on the principle laid down in the case of Lai Ki v. B & B Construction Co. Ltd [2003] 3 HKLRD 192, the defendants further submit that there...

To continue reading

Request your trial