We recently reported on the trial judge’s decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. et al. v. Yang et al., a case which discussed the type of damages which can be awarded against a Defendant trading in counterfeit goods.

One of the Defendants in that case, Lin Pi-Chu Yang (also known as Pi-Chu Lin, Wai Ying, Martina and Coco), brought a motion to set aside the Default Judgment by arguing that she was never served with the Statement of Claim and that she had no interest whatsoever (other than as the lessor of the premises) in the business known as K2 Fashions, which traded in the counterfeit goods.

The Federal Court declined the order requested on the basis that the Defendant failed to meet the well-established test for setting aside a default judgment (1. a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a Statement of Defence; 2. a prima facie defence on the merits to the Plaintiff’s claim; and 3. that the Defendant moved promptly to set aside the Default Judgment.) Although Ms. Lin met the third element of the test given her promptness in seeking to set aside the Default Judgment, Ms. Lin was unable to satisfy the Court that there was a reasonable explanation for her failure to file a Statement of Defence, or that she had a prima facie defence on the merits to the Plaintiff’s claim. While Ms. Lin argued that as a landlord and not an owner of K2 Fashions she should not be liable in respect of counterfeit stock, the evidence showed Ms. Lin to be “the person in control of the business”. Furthermore, an affidavit by a licensed private investigator was presented to the Court which showed that Ms. Lin had been correctly served with the Statement of Claim.

Accordingly, the motion to set aside the Default Judgment was dismissed.