WONG CHONG KWAI YIN v. TANG LAN FONG AND ANOTHER

WONG CHONG KWAI YIN v. TANG LAN FONG AND ANOTHER

There was sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a serious question to be tried that the 2nd Defendant procured the incidents of 20 May 2005 and, on the balance of convenience, the modified interlocutory injunction should be continued because the Plaintiff demonstrated real risk to her personal safety and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WONG CHONG KWAI YIN v. TANG LAN FONG AND ANOTHER
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 June 2005
Case Number
HCA939/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Adverse Possession and Interlocutory Injunction / Interim Injunction Hearing (inter Partes)
Outcome
Application by 2nd Defendant to discharge interlocutory injunction dismissed; injunction continued in modified terms against 2nd Defendant; injunction against 1st Defendant discharged following undertaking.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Interim Injunction, Possessory Title, Harassment/threats, Circumstantial Evidence
Source Language
en
Property Civil Procedure Tort Land Law Adverse Possession Interim Injunction Possessory Title Harassment/threats +1 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Adverse Possession and Interlocutory Injunction / Interim Injunction Hearing (inter Partes)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried that the 2nd Defendant procured the incidents of 20 May 2005
  2. 2 Whether the acts of 20 May 2005 amount to tortious conduct
  3. 3 Whether balance of convenience favors continuation of an interlocutory injunction against the 2nd Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a serious question to be tried that the 2nd Defendant procured the incidents of 20 May 2005 and, on the balance of convenience, the modified interlocutory injunction should be continued because the Plaintiff demonstrated real risk to her personal safety and the 2nd Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from continuation.

Court Disposition

Application by 2nd Defendant to discharge interlocutory injunction dismissed; injunction continued in modified terms against 2nd Defendant; injunction against 1st Defendant discharged following undertaking.

Orders

  • Injunction against 1st Defendant discharged following undertaking by 1st Defendant not to assault, harass, threaten or intimidate the Plaintiff
  • Interim injunction against 2nd Defendant continued in modified terms; application to discharge dismissed