SHL COMPONENTS MARKETING LTD v. NGAN YUK SHU AND ANOTHER

SHL COMPONENTS MARKETING LTD v. NGAN YUK SHU AND ANOTHER

The injunction was discharged because (1) the balance of convenience did not favour preserving the status quo given that the wall was an admitted unauthorised building work and its structural safety was questionable, and (2) the plaintiff committed material non-disclosures in the ex parte application by failing to disclose that the wall was a UBW and the background to its construction; consequently no fresh injunction was necessary as defendants proposed to seek Buildings Department approval and use an approved contractor; costs nisi awarded to defendants.

Citation
SHL COMPONENTS MARKETING LTD v. NGAN YUK SHU AND ANOTHER
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 August 2013
Case Number
DCCJ2010/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction / Inter Partes Summons Hearing for Continuation/discharge of Ex Parte Injunction
Outcome
Summons dismissed; ex parte injunction discharged; no fresh injunction granted; costs nisi ordered against plaintiff; certificate for counsel granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Ex Parte Injunction, Full and Frank Disclosure, Unauthorised Building Works, Balance of Convenience, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Building/construction Administrative Law Interim Injunction Ex Parte Injunction Full and Frank Disclosure Unauthorised Building Works +2 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction / Inter Partes Summons Hearing for Continuation/discharge of Ex Parte Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory injunction should be continued in amended form
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff made full and frank disclosure in the ex parte application
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged because (1) the balance of convenience did not favour preserving the status quo given that the wall was an admitted unauthorised building work and its structural safety was questionable, and (2) the plaintiff committed material non-disclosures in the ex parte application by failing to disclose that the wall was a UBW and the background to its construction; consequently no fresh injunction was necessary as defendants proposed to seek Buildings Department approval and use an approved contractor; costs nisi awarded to defendants.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; ex parte injunction discharged; no fresh injunction granted; costs nisi ordered against plaintiff; certificate for counsel granted

Orders

  • The Summons is dismissed
  • The injunction granted on 3 June 2013 is discharged