LI SIN MAN, SELINE AND OTHERS v. LI SHU CHUNG AND OTHERS

LI SIN MAN, SELINE AND OTHERS v. LI SHU CHUNG AND OTHERS

The application was dismissed because plaintiffs did not unreasonably delay prosecution given the multiplicity of related proceedings; there is a triable issue as to whether the defendants' conduct caused a reasonable apprehension of unlawful violence; the balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction to protect safety and preserve the status quo; the alleged non-disclosure was either immaterial to the ex parte relief or not a basis to discharge the injunction after substantial delay; and the applicant has no presently enforceable right to occupy the premises pending resolution of related proceedings.

Citation
LI SIN MAN, SELINE AND OTHERS v. LI SHU CHUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Li Sin Man Seline; 2nd Plaintiff: Lee Sai Nam; 3rd Plaintiff: Lee Shu Hang; 1st Defendant: Li Shu Chung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 October 2015
Case Number
HCA1831/2010
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Discharge or Vary an Ex Parte Injunction / Hearing and Reasons for Decision on Application (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application to discharge or vary the injunction dismissed; injunction continued
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Assault and Harassment, Proprietary Interest in Property, Delay and Laches, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications, Balance of Convenience, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Litigation Equity Tort Property Law Family Business Disputes Interim Injunction Assault and Harassment Proprietary Interest in Property +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Sin Man Seline

1st Plaintiff

Lee Sai Nam

2nd Plaintiff

Lee Shu Hang

3rd Plaintiff

Li Shu Chung

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application to Discharge or Vary an Ex Parte Injunction / Hearing and Reasons for Decision on Application (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte injunction should be discharged or varied
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have inordinately delayed prosecution of the claim
  3. 3 Whether there is a triable issue as to assault/apprehension of unlawful force

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because plaintiffs did not unreasonably delay prosecution given the multiplicity of related proceedings; there is a triable issue as to whether the defendants' conduct caused a reasonable apprehension of unlawful violence; the balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction to protect safety and preserve the status quo; the alleged non-disclosure was either immaterial to the ex parte relief or not a basis to discharge the injunction after substantial delay; and the applicant has no presently enforceable right to occupy the premises pending resolution of related proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge or vary the injunction dismissed; injunction continued

Orders

  • Application to discharge or vary the injunction dismissed
  • Interim injunction maintained in its terms (continued)