GOLDON INVESTMENT LTD v. PERSONS WHO ERECTED OR PLACED OR MAINTAINED OBSTRUCTIONS OR OTHERWISE DO ANY ACT TO CAUSE OBSTRUCTION, OR TO PREVENT OR HINDER THE CLEARANCE AND REMOVAL OF THE OBSTRUCTIONS AT THE ENTRANCES OR EXITS OF CITIC TOWER, 1. TIM MEI AVENUE, CENTRAL, HONG KONG (“CITIC TOWER”), AND/OR THE VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN PASSAGEWAY AT TIM MEI AVENUE AND/OR LUNG WUI ROAD WHICH BLOCK VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO CITIC TOWER AND ANOTHER

GOLDON INVESTMENT LTD v. PERSONS WHO ERECTED OR PLACED OR MAINTAINED OBSTRUCTIONS OR OTHERWISE DO ANY ACT TO CAUSE OBSTRUCTION, OR TO PREVENT OR HINDER THE CLEARANCE AND REMOVAL OF THE OBSTRUCTIONS AT THE ENTRANCES OR EXITS OF CITIC TOWER, 1. TIM MEI AVENUE, CENTRAL, HONG KONG (“CITIC TOWER”), AND/OR THE VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN PASSAGEWAY AT TIM MEI AVENUE AND/OR LUNG WUI ROAD WHICH BLOCK VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO CITIC TOWER AND ANOTHER

The court found plaintiffs had at least a triable case that they suffered particular, substantial and direct damage from the public nuisance and that damages would be inadequate; accordingly the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the interlocutory injunctions (Mongkok Injunctions and CITIC Tower Injunction). The court further held it was appropriate to direct bailiffs to assist enforcement and to include a police authorisation allowing officers to arrest persons reasonably suspected of obstructing bailiffs (criminal contempt) provided the person is warned, and ordered costs against represented defendants.

Citation
GOLDON INVESTMENT LTD v. PERSONS WHO ERECTED OR PLACED OR MAINTAINED OBSTRUCTIONS OR OTHERWISE DO ANY ACT TO CAUSE OBSTRUCTION, OR TO PREVENT OR HINDER THE CLEARANCE AND REMOVAL OF THE OBSTRUCTIONS AT THE ENTRANCES OR EXITS OF CITIC TOWER, 1. TIM MEI AVENUE, CENTRAL, HONG KONG (“CITIC TOWER”), AND/OR THE VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN PASSAGEWAY AT TIM MEI AVENUE AND/OR LUNG WUI ROAD WHICH BLOCK VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO CITIC TOWER AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (citic Tower Action): Goldon Investment Limited; Plaintiff (taxi Operators Action): Plaintiff (Taxi Operators Action) - Lai Hoi Ping / HKTA and Tam Chun Hung / TDOA; Plaintiff (minibus Manager Action): Plaintiff (Minibus Manager Action); 1st Defendant (unnamed Protestors): Persons who erected or placed or maintained obstructions (unnamed); 2nd Defendant (joined Defendant Opposing Mongkok Injunctions): Ng Ting Pong; 2nd Defendant (joined Defendant Opposing CITIC Tower Injunction): Wong Yuen Ching; 3rd Defendant: Wai Pong Dominic; Named Defendant (appeared in Person): Chen Raymond
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 November 2014
Case Number
HCA2094/2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Applications Arising From Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance Claims / Inter Partes Hearing to Determine Continuation of Ex Parte Injunctions and to Authorise Enforcement Directions (bailiff and Police) Before Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions continued (Mongkok Injunctions and CITIC Tower Injunction) until trial or further order; bailiff assistance and police authorisation directions granted; costs ordered against represented defendants
Legal Topics
Interim/interlocutory Injunctions, Particular Substantial and Direct Damage, Representative Action, Balance of Convenience, Material Non Disclosure, Police Authorisation to Enforce Orders, Bailiff Enforcement, Rule of Law
Source Language
EN
Civil Law Tort Public Nuisance Private Nuisance Civil Procedure Contempt Interim/interlocutory Injunctions Particular Substantial and Direct Damage +6 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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldon Investment Limited

Plaintiff (citic Tower Action)

Plaintiff (Taxi Operators Action) - Lai Hoi Ping / HKTA and Tam Chun Hung / TDOA

Plaintiff (taxi Operators Action)

Plaintiff (Minibus Manager Action)

Plaintiff (minibus Manager Action)

Persons who erected or placed or maintained obstructions (unnamed)

1st Defendant (unnamed Protestors)

Ng Ting Pong

2nd Defendant (joined Defendant Opposing Mongkok Injunctions)

Wong Yuen Ching

2nd Defendant (joined Defendant Opposing CITIC Tower Injunction)

Wai Pong Dominic

3rd Defendant

Chen Raymond

Named Defendant (appeared in Person)

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Applications Arising From Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance Claims / Inter Partes Hearing to Determine Continuation of Ex Parte Injunctions and to Authorise Enforcement Directions (bailiff and Police) Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether individual plaintiffs have locus to sue in public nuisance (particular, substantial and direct damage)
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs have shown serious issue to be tried for public and private nuisance
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy and where balance of convenience lies

Ratio Decidendi

The court found plaintiffs had at least a triable case that they suffered particular, substantial and direct damage from the public nuisance and that damages would be inadequate; accordingly the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the interlocutory injunctions (Mongkok Injunctions and CITIC Tower Injunction). The court further held it was appropriate to direct bailiffs to assist enforcement and to include a police authorisation allowing officers to arrest persons reasonably suspected of obstructing bailiffs (criminal contempt) provided the person is warned, and ordered costs against represented defendants.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions continued (Mongkok Injunctions and CITIC Tower Injunction) until trial or further order; bailiff assistance and police authorisation directions granted; costs ordered against represented defendants

Orders

  • Continue Mongkok Injunctions (revised terms) until trial or further order
  • Continue CITIC Tower Injunction until trial or further order