POAD GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. S CUBE MEDIA LTD AND ANOTHER

POAD GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. S CUBE MEDIA LTD AND ANOTHER

The interim mandatory injunction was refused because plaintiffs failed to establish a good arguable case that defendants possessed and were using POAD's confidential database (evidence was equivocal, there was no forensic examination, no demonstrable loss in billing, and alternative public sourcing was plausible); further the proposed injunction was too broad and vague to be enforceable and the plaintiffs' delay in commencing proceedings was unexplained, defeating the claim to urgent irreparable harm.

Citation
POAD GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. S CUBE MEDIA LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: POAD Group Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Polarline Developments Limited; 1st Defendant: S Cube Media Limited; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Tat Chun (Tay)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Case Number
HCA761/2014
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (confidential Information) / Interlocutory/chambers Hearing
Outcome
Summons dismissed; interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Non Solicitation Clause, Database Protection, Forensic Evidence, Delay/promptness in Seeking Injunction, Enforceability/vagueness of Injunction
Source Language
EN
Confidential Information Employment Law Civil Procedure Restraint of Trade/contracts Intellectual Property (allegations Raised) Breach of Confidence Non Solicitation Clause Database Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

POAD Group Limited

1st Plaintiff

Polarline Developments Limited

2nd Plaintiff

S Cube Media Limited

1st Defendant

Cheung Tat Chun (Tay)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (confidential Information) / Interlocutory/chambers Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs established a good arguable case that defendants possess and are using plaintiff's confidential database
  2. 2 Whether the proposed mandatory interim injunction is sufficiently precise and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' delay in bringing proceedings undermines the claim to irreparable harm

Ratio Decidendi

The interim mandatory injunction was refused because plaintiffs failed to establish a good arguable case that defendants possessed and were using POAD's confidential database (evidence was equivocal, there was no forensic examination, no demonstrable loss in billing, and alternative public sourcing was plausible); further the proposed injunction was too broad and vague to be enforceable and the plaintiffs' delay in commencing proceedings was unexplained, defeating the claim to urgent irreparable harm.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Summons for interim injunction dismissed
  • Order nisi that the defendant shall have its costs of the application for the interim injunction, to be taxed on a party and party basis