PAUL Y. - CREC ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. AJAX PONG CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ANOTHER

PAUL Y. - CREC ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. AJAX PONG CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ANOTHER

There was uncontested evidential support that servants or agents of the 1st defendant trespassed onto the site and removed hired plant and machinery contrary to contractual provisions; given the scale of the works and the risk of irreparable loss to the plaintiff, the balance of convenience favored continuing the interim injunction against the 1st defendant, while the evidence was insufficient to infer personal liability by the 2nd defendant, so the injunction against him was discharged.

Citation
PAUL Y. - CREC ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. AJAX PONG CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: CREC ENGINEERING CO. LTD; 1st Defendant: AJAX PONG CONSTRUCTION LTD; 2nd Defendant: THOMAS P.S. LAU
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 June 2000
Case Number
HCA5324/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Interim Injunction Arising From Subcontract Dispute / Return Date Hearing on Interim Injunction (inter Partes)
Outcome
Interim injunction against 1st defendant continued until trial or further order; injunction against 2nd defendant discharged.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Trespass, Subcontract Termination, Repudiation, Balance of Convenience, Possession of Hired Plant, Director Liability
Source Language
EN
Civil Contract Property Tort Equity Interim Injunction Trespass Subcontract Termination +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CREC ENGINEERING CO. LTD

Plaintiff

AJAX PONG CONSTRUCTION LTD

1st Defendant

THOMAS P.S. LAU

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interim Injunction Arising From Subcontract Dispute / Return Date Hearing on Interim Injunction (inter Partes)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte interim injunction should be continued against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant was responsible for blockade by independent truck drivers
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant trespassed and removed hired plant and machinery in breach of the subcontract and main contract clauses

Ratio Decidendi

There was uncontested evidential support that servants or agents of the 1st defendant trespassed onto the site and removed hired plant and machinery contrary to contractual provisions; given the scale of the works and the risk of irreparable loss to the plaintiff, the balance of convenience favored continuing the interim injunction against the 1st defendant, while the evidence was insufficient to infer personal liability by the 2nd defendant, so the injunction against him was discharged.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction against 1st defendant continued until trial or further order; injunction against 2nd defendant discharged.

Orders

  • Continue interim injunction granted ex parte against AJAX PONG CONSTRUCTION LTD (1st Defendant) until trial or further order
  • Discharge the interim injunction against THOMAS P.S. LAU (2nd Defendant)