MTM LAB JAPAN LTD AND OTHERS v. ABACUS LTD AND ANOTHER

MTM LAB JAPAN LTD AND OTHERS v. ABACUS LTD AND ANOTHER

There is a serious question to be tried that defendants (or their agents) perpetrated harassing and intimidating acts; plaintiffs offered an adequate cross-undertaking and no convincing evidence was shown that fortification was required; the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction in the terms of the defendants' prior undertaking to prevent further harassment pending trial.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 917
Parties
1st Plaintiff: MTM LAB JAPAN LTD.; 2nd Plaintiff: MAH STANLEY JUN; 3rd Plaintiff: CHU ALICE HANGYEN; 1st Defendant: ABACUS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: CHUNG KING KAN DAVID
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2022
Case Number
DCCJ1991/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Interlocutory Injunction Application / Substantive Hearing of Inter Partes Summons (interlocutory)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in the terms of the defendants' prior undertaking; plaintiffs' cross-undertaking in damages recorded; defendants ordered to pay costs to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Tort of Harassment, Tort of Intimidation, Undertaking as to Damages, Fortification, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
EN
Tort Civil Procedure Injunctions Commercial Disputes Interlocutory Injunction Tort of Harassment Tort of Intimidation Undertaking as to Damages +2 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 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MTM LAB JAPAN LTD.

1st Plaintiff

MAH STANLEY JUN

2nd Plaintiff

CHU ALICE HANGYEN

3rd Plaintiff

ABACUS LIMITED

1st Defendant

CHUNG KING KAN DAVID

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Interlocutory Injunction Application / Substantive Hearing of Inter Partes Summons (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried that defendants were involved in repeated harassing and intimidating conduct
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy and whether plaintiffs' cross-undertaking is sufficient
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure or require fortification of undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried that defendants (or their agents) perpetrated harassing and intimidating acts; plaintiffs offered an adequate cross-undertaking and no convincing evidence was shown that fortification was required; the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction in the terms of the defendants' prior undertaking to prevent further harassment pending trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in the terms of the defendants' prior undertaking; plaintiffs' cross-undertaking in damages recorded; defendants ordered to pay costs to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • An interlocutory injunction is granted restraining the defendants, directly or indirectly, from causing, authorizing or permitting harassment, nuisance or intimidation to the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and their family members and to the staff, directors, officers, employees and business associates of the 1st plaintiff;...
  • The plaintiffs' cross-undertaking in damages is recorded.