EFFISCIENT LTD v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

EFFISCIENT LTD v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

The July 23, 2010 interlocutory order remained in force because it was expressed to continue until after trial or until further order and no further order or trial occurred; the Applicant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent intentionally sent the emails in October 2011 in breach of that order; contempt was established and a sentence of six months' imprisonment suspended for two years plus indemnity costs was appropriate.

Citation
EFFISCIENT LTD v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN
Parties
Applicant: EFFISCIENT LIMITED; Respondent: EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 July 2012
Case Number
HCMP2524/2011
Procedural Posture
Committal for Civil Contempt / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Respondent found in contempt of court; sentence imposed
Legal Topics
Committal, Interlocutory Injunction, Default Judgment, Breach of Court Order, Sentencing Mitigation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Defamation Injunctions Committal Interlocutory Injunction Default Judgment Breach of Court Order +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EFFISCIENT LIMITED

Applicant

EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal for Civil Contempt / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory injunction made 23 July 2010 remained in force in October 2011
  2. 2 Whether the emails sent in October 2011 breached that injunction
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant proved contempt beyond reasonable doubt including the requisite mental element

Ratio Decidendi

The July 23, 2010 interlocutory order remained in force because it was expressed to continue until after trial or until further order and no further order or trial occurred; the Applicant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent intentionally sent the emails in October 2011 in breach of that order; contempt was established and a sentence of six months' imprisonment suspended for two years plus indemnity costs was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Respondent found in contempt of court; sentence imposed

Orders

  • Respondent sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years
  • Respondent to pay costs of these committal proceedings on an indemnity basis forthwith