CHU SHU HO DAVID AND ANOTHER v. LAM HON LIT HARRY

CHU SHU HO DAVID AND ANOTHER v. LAM HON LIT HARRY

Burrell J's injunction was inter partes because the defendant had notice and opportunity to be heard; therefore this judge had no jurisdiction to set aside or discharge that inter partes interim injunction; accordingly the defendant's application was refused, the continuation of the 2nd parte order was granted to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHU SHU HO DAVID AND ANOTHER v. LAM HON LIT HARRY
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHU SHU HO DAVID; 2nd Plaintiff: MISSION HILLS GOLF CLUB LIMITED; Defendant: LAM HON LIT HARRY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 September 2002
Case Number
HCA3525/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil — Interim Injunction / Winding‑up Petition Restraint / Summons Day Interim Applications; Reasons for Decision (27 Sep 2002; Reasons Handed Down 30 Oct 2002)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' applications to continue the interim orders and to consolidate granted; defendant's application to set aside/discharge Burrell J's Order refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Continuation of Ex Parte Order, Consolidation of Actions, Setting Aside Interlocutory Order, Jurisdictional Limits
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity (injunctions) Cross‑border Insolvency Interim Injunction Continuation of Ex Parte Order Consolidation of Actions Setting Aside Interlocutory Order +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHU SHU HO DAVID

1st Plaintiff

MISSION HILLS GOLF CLUB LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

LAM HON LIT HARRY

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil — Interim Injunction / Winding‑up Petition Restraint / Summons Day Interim Applications; Reasons for Decision (27 Sep 2002; Reasons Handed Down 30 Oct 2002)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Burrell J's Order was inter partes or ex parte
  2. 2 Whether a judge may set aside or discharge another judge's inter partes interim injunction
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd parte ex parte order should be continued to prevent circumvention by presentation of a winding‑up petition in the BVI

Ratio Decidendi

Burrell J's injunction was inter partes because the defendant had notice and opportunity to be heard; therefore this judge had no jurisdiction to set aside or discharge that inter partes interim injunction; accordingly the defendant's application was refused, the continuation of the 2nd parte order was granted to prevent circumvention, and the two actions were consolidated with HCA3525 as the leading action.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' applications to continue the interim orders and to consolidate granted; defendant's application to set aside/discharge Burrell J's Order refused.

Orders

  • Summonses to consolidate HCA3525 and HCA3618 allowed; HCA3525 to stand as the leading action