![IP-2024-000024 - [2024] EWHC 951 (IPEC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AacSvIO.png){kind=logo}
Difficulty in enforcing a judgment in China for damages under the cross-undertaking
Difficulty in enforcing a judgment in China for damages under the cross-undertaking
The Defendant argued that it is difficult to enforce a High Court Order in China, and that it could take up to a year.
I was not impressed with this argument at all. There was no evidence to suggest that the Claimant would not meet its obligations if the court held that it was liable to pay damages under a cross-undertaking for an injunction which should not have been granted. As a result, there is no reason to consider the ease with which a damages judgment could be enforced in China. In any event, even if enforcement proceedings were necessary, the damage would be quantifiable (being the judgment debt, on this hypothesis as yet unpaid). I would have rejected this as an additional head of unquantifiable damage.
In conclusion, I would have found that damages would be an adequate remedy to the Defendant under Stage 3 if the analysis had got that far.
- Heading
- Miss Charlotte May KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- Background
- Applicable Legal Principles
- Is the Claimant the proprietor of the Patent?
- Quality of the Defendant’s evidence
- Trial Listing
- Stage 1: Serious issue to be tried?
- Stage 2: Are damages an adequate remedy for the Claimant?
- Loss of Market Exclusivity
- Defendant’s alleged derogatory statements
- Price Depression
- Quantification of damage
- Stage 3: If not, are damages an adequate remedy for the Defendant?
- Lost sales of convoyed goods
- Reputational Damage
- Difficulty in enforcing a judgment in China for damages under the cross-undertaking
- Stage 4: If damages are not an adequate remedy for either side, where does the balance of convenience lie?
- Conclusions