WAN PAK FAI AND ANOTHER v. INFORMLINK CONSULTANCY LTD. AND ANOTHER

WAN PAK FAI AND ANOTHER v. INFORMLINK CONSULTANCY LTD. AND ANOTHER

The ex parte injunction was discharged because the evidence fell below the standard required for ex parte relief and the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (notably his connection to the companies); the alleged conduct did not amount to trespass or threats; accordingly the 1st and 3rd defendants were awarded costs on the ordinary party and party basis to be taxed and paid forthwith.

Citation
WAN PAK FAI AND ANOTHER v. INFORMLINK CONSULTANCY LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Wan Pak Fai; 2nd Plaintiff: Maxchan Properties Limited; 1st Defendant: Informlink Consultancy Limited; 2nd Defendant: Sino Real Estate Agency Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 January 2000
Case Number
HCA17989/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction / Interlocutory Application to Continue Ex Parte Injunction
Outcome
Ex parte injunction discharged; costs awarded to 1st and 3rd defendants.
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Injunction, Full and Frank Disclosure, Trespass, Debt Collection Practices, Costs Taxation, Undertakings
Source Language
EN
Civil Injunction Debt Recovery Company Law Costs Ex Parte Injunction Full and Frank Disclosure Trespass +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wan Pak Fai

1st Plaintiff

Maxchan Properties Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Informlink Consultancy Limited

1st Defendant

Sino Real Estate Agency Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction / Interlocutory Application to Continue Ex Parte Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte injunction should be continued or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the applicant made full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' visits amounted to trespass or unlawful harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte injunction was discharged because the evidence fell below the standard required for ex parte relief and the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (notably his connection to the companies); the alleged conduct did not amount to trespass or threats; accordingly the 1st and 3rd defendants were awarded costs on the ordinary party and party basis to be taxed and paid forthwith.

Court Disposition

Ex parte injunction discharged; costs awarded to 1st and 3rd defendants.

Orders

  • Injunction discharged.
  • 1st and 3rd defendants to have the costs of the application.