LO CHUN NIN EDDY v. TAM YIU CHI

LO CHUN NIN EDDY v. TAM YIU CHI

The application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction was refused because, although there was a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favored the defendant who had paid a substantial deposit and occupied the premises as home, damages (and the deposit) adequately protected the plaintiff, the plaintiff had unexplained delay negating urgency, and the high threshold for mandatory interim relief was not met.

Citation
LO CHUN NIN EDDY v. TAM YIU CHI
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (by Counter Claim): LO CHUN NIN EDDY; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counter Claim): TAM YIU-CHI; Defendant (by Counter Claim): BUILDFONT COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 May 1999
Case Number
HCA20869/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Sale of Property / Injunction / Interim Application for Mandatory Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application for mandatory interlocutory injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Injunction, Specific Performance, Deposit Forfeiture, Equitable Interest, Balance of Convenience, Delay and Urgency
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Injunctions Mandatory Injunction Specific Performance Deposit Forfeiture +3 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LO CHUN NIN EDDY

Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (by Counter Claim)

TAM YIU-CHI

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counter Claim)

BUILDFONT COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant (by Counter Claim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Sale of Property / Injunction / Interim Application for Mandatory Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mandatory interim injunction forcing the defendant to vacate the premises should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has acquired an equitable interest in the property by payment and occupation
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy to protect the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction was refused because, although there was a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favored the defendant who had paid a substantial deposit and occupied the premises as home, damages (and the deposit) adequately protected the plaintiff, the plaintiff had unexplained delay negating urgency, and the high threshold for mandatory interim relief was not met.

Court Disposition

Application for mandatory interlocutory injunction refused.

Orders

  • Application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction forcing the defendant to vacate the premises is refused.