AB CLUB LTD AND OTHERS v. chan yin ki cubie AND OTHERS

AB CLUB LTD AND OTHERS v. chan yin ki cubie AND OTHERS

Recorder Houghton found there was a serious issue to be tried on the scope of the contractual restriction (including whether "clients" extends to developer clients) and that an injunction (rather than mere undertakings) clarifying non-solicitation to include property developers to the extent of relationships existing at the time of employment was justified as to the 2nd–4th defendants; he accepted renewal of undertakings restraining use of confidential information and delivery up of such material; however he refused springboard injunctions against the 1st and 2nd defendants because the plaintiffs had not established that damages would be inadequate or that springboard relief was necessary...

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 681
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 limied
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Case Number
HCA1644/2020
Procedural Posture
Team Move / Breach of Confidence and Restrictive Covenants / Interlocutory Hearing for Interim Relief (renewal/variation of Interim Injunctions and Undertakings)
Outcome
Interlocutory relief partially granted for plaintiffs; springboard relief refused for the 1st and 2nd defendants; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Non Compete Clauses, Non Solicitation, Breach of Confidence, Springboard Injunction, Fiduciary Duties, Contractual Interpretation
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Equity and Trusts Commercial Law Company Law Injunctions Non Compete Clauses Non Solicitation Breach of Confidence +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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 limied

11th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Team Move / Breach of Confidence and Restrictive Covenants / Interlocutory Hearing for Interim Relief (renewal/variation of Interim Injunctions and Undertakings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the individual defendants misappropriated or misused confidential information and whether springboard relief is appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the contractual term "clients" includes property developers
  3. 3 Whether undertakings are sufficient or a court order is required

Ratio Decidendi

Recorder Houghton found there was a serious issue to be tried on the scope of the contractual restriction (including whether "clients" extends to developer clients) and that an injunction (rather than mere undertakings) clarifying non-solicitation to include property developers to the extent of relationships existing at the time of employment was justified as to the 2nd–4th defendants; he accepted renewal of undertakings restraining use of confidential information and delivery up of such material; however he refused springboard injunctions against the 1st and 2nd defendants because the plaintiffs had not established that damages would be inadequate or that springboard relief was necessary...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief partially granted for plaintiffs; springboard relief refused for the 1st and 2nd defendants; costs reserved

Orders

  • Renewal and continuation of undertakings by the 1st to 9th defendants restraining use of Confidential Information and requiring delivery of originals and copies to Henry Yu & Associates for safe custody pending further order
  • Continuation/clarification of the interim non-solicitation injunctions against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants restraining solicitation of employees and clients (defined to include property buyers and property developers only to the extent of existing relationships at the time of employment) for the period claimed...