AB CLUB LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN YIN KI CUBIE AND OTHERS

AB CLUB LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN YIN KI CUBIE AND OTHERS

The court refused the interim non-compete (springboard) injunction because the plaintiffs' delay, the lack of immediate urgency and the adequacy of damages made the risk of injustice from granting such an order greater than refusing it; however, on the papers there was a good arguable case that the 2nd–4th Defendants were bound by contractual non-solicitation covenants and little prejudice would flow from enforcing those covenants pending full trial, so an interim non-solicitation injunction was granted against the 2nd–4th Defendants (including by or through the 1st, 10th and 11th Defendants), and no immediate delivery-up/destruction order was made because defendants undertook to lodge...

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2769
Parties
1st Plaintiff: AB CLUB LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: KNIGHTSBRIDGE & PARTNERS LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: ASHTON HAWKS LIMITED; 4th Plaintiff: GOLDEN EMPEROR PROPERTIES (HK) LIMITED; 5th Plaintiff: GOLDEN EMPEROR PROPERTIES (MONGKOK BRANCH) LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CHAN YIN KI CUBIE; 2nd Defendant: CHENG MICHELE WANG; 3rd Defendant: MA CHI WAI JORDAN; 4th Defendant: LOK WING YAN AMIGO; 5th Defendant: AU KA HO JOSEPH; 6th Defendant: TSE MEI SEE TIFFONY; 7th Defendant: YUNG KIN MING KINNU; 8th Defendant: CHAN HIN MAN EMILE; 9th Defendant: POON SHUK FEI; 10th Defendant: SWAN KNIGHTS LIMITED; 11th Defendant: SK ONE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 November 2020
Case Number
HCA1644/2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Injunction Application (employment/restrictive Covenants/confidential Information) / Interim Decision on Summons for Interim Relief (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Non-compete (springboard) injunction refused; interim non-solicitation injunction granted against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants (including by or through the 1st, 10th and 11th Defendants); no immediate order for delivery up/destruction as defendants undertook to place confidential material in solicitors' safe...
Legal Topics
Non Compete, Non Solicitation, Springboard Injunction, Fiduciary Duties, Delivery Up of Confidential Information, Delay/urgency and Adequacy of Damages
Source Language
EN
Contract Equity Employment Law Injunctions Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Non Compete Non Solicitation +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB CLUB LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

KNIGHTSBRIDGE & PARTNERS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

ASHTON HAWKS LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

GOLDEN EMPEROR PROPERTIES (HK) LIMITED

4th Plaintiff

GOLDEN EMPEROR PROPERTIES (MONGKOK BRANCH) LIMITED

5th Plaintiff

CHAN YIN KI CUBIE

1st Defendant

CHENG MICHELE WANG

2nd Defendant

MA CHI WAI JORDAN

3rd Defendant

LOK WING YAN AMIGO

4th Defendant

AU KA HO JOSEPH

5th Defendant

TSE MEI SEE TIFFONY

6th Defendant

YUNG KIN MING KINNU

7th Defendant

CHAN HIN MAN EMILE

8th Defendant

POON SHUK FEI

9th Defendant

SWAN KNIGHTS LIMITED

10th Defendant

SK ONE LIMITED

11th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Injunction Application (employment/restrictive Covenants/confidential Information) / Interim Decision on Summons for Interim Relief (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a springboard/non-compete interim injunction
  2. 2 Whether to grant a non-solicitation interim injunction enforcing contractual covenants
  3. 3 Whether delivery up/destruction of confidential information should be ordered immediately or managed by undertakings

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the interim non-compete (springboard) injunction because the plaintiffs' delay, the lack of immediate urgency and the adequacy of damages made the risk of injustice from granting such an order greater than refusing it; however, on the papers there was a good arguable case that the 2nd–4th Defendants were bound by contractual non-solicitation covenants and little prejudice would flow from enforcing those covenants pending full trial, so an interim non-solicitation injunction was granted against the 2nd–4th Defendants (including by or through the 1st, 10th and 11th Defendants), and no immediate delivery-up/destruction order was made because defendants undertook to lodge...

Court Disposition

Non-compete (springboard) injunction refused; interim non-solicitation injunction granted against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants (including by or through the 1st, 10th and 11th Defendants); no immediate order for delivery up/destruction as defendants undertook to place confidential material in solicitors' safe...

Orders

  • Refusal of interim non-compete/springboard injunction sought in paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs' Summons
  • Grant of interim non-solicitation injunction enjoining the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants (including by or through the 1st, 10th and 11th Defendants) from soliciting clients and employees of the Plaintiffs pending determination of the Summons