KWOON CHUNG MOTORS CO LTD v. KWOK CHEUK KIN AND OTHERS

KWOON CHUNG MOTORS CO LTD v. KWOK CHEUK KIN AND OTHERS

Kwoon Chung's application failed because its pecuniary loss was trivial and it did not show particular, substantial and direct damage; ACE raised a serious issue to be tried on particular, substantial and direct damage (significant loss of turnover and service disruption) and damages were inadequate in the interim; on balance of convenience an interlocutory injunction should be granted to ACE to prevent continued unlawful occupation of specified road sections pending trial, with directions to enable precise delineation of the area and enforcement assistance.

Citation
KWOON CHUNG MOTORS CO LTD v. KWOK CHEUK KIN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 2223/2014): All China Express Limited; Plaintiff (hca 2222/2014): Kwoon Chung; 1st Defendants: 1st Defendants (Unidentified protestors, Occupy Central); 2nd Defendant: Kwok Cheuk Kin; 3rd Defendant: Wong Ho Ming
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 December 2014
Case Number
HCA2222/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (public Nuisance; Interlocutory Injunction) / Interlocutory Injunction Application in the Court of First Instance (hearing 11 & 17 Nov 2014); Judgment 1 Dec 2014
Outcome
Kwoon Chung's interlocutory injunction application refused. All China Express Limited's application allowed: interlocutory injunction granted in favour of ACE until trial or further order, subject to directions and conditions.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Particular Substantial and Direct Damage, Balance of Convenience, Standing, Civil Disobedience, Service by Advertisement, Bailiff and Police Assistance
Source Language
EN
Public Nuisance Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Administrative Law Enforcement of Court Orders Interlocutory Injunction Particular Substantial and Direct Damage Balance of Convenience +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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

All China Express Limited

Plaintiff (hca 2223/2014)

Kwoon Chung

Plaintiff (hca 2222/2014)

1st Defendants (Unidentified protestors, Occupy Central)

1st Defendants

Kwok Cheuk Kin

2nd Defendant

Wong Ho Ming

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (public Nuisance; Interlocutory Injunction) / Interlocutory Injunction Application in the Court of First Instance (hearing 11 & 17 Nov 2014); Judgment 1 Dec 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried on private claims in public nuisance
  2. 2 Whether private plaintiffs have suffered particular, substantial and direct damage
  3. 3 Appropriate threshold for interlocutory injunctions in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Kwoon Chung's application failed because its pecuniary loss was trivial and it did not show particular, substantial and direct damage; ACE raised a serious issue to be tried on particular, substantial and direct damage (significant loss of turnover and service disruption) and damages were inadequate in the interim; on balance of convenience an interlocutory injunction should be granted to ACE to prevent continued unlawful occupation of specified road sections pending trial, with directions to enable precise delineation of the area and enforcement assistance.

Court Disposition

Kwoon Chung's interlocutory injunction application refused. All China Express Limited's application allowed: interlocutory injunction granted in favour of ACE until trial or further order, subject to directions and conditions.

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction granted restraining defendants until trial or further order from occupying Sections 1-3 of the specified road areas (Connaught Road Central eastbound between Edinburgh Place western and eastern portions; Harcourt Road eastbound between Edinburgh Place eastern portion and Cotton Tree Drive;...
  • Injunction prohibits erecting/maintaining tents, canopies, barriers, barricades or other obstacles in the ACE Action Area and prohibits preventing ACE or its authorised agents from dismantling/removing obstructions