CAPITAL SOURCE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 1st AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as Office 3301 and Office 3302 on 33rd Floor The World Trade Centre AND OTHERS

CAPITAL SOURCE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 1st AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as Office 3301 and Office 3302 on 33rd Floor The World Trade Centre AND OTHERS

Ex parte committal could not be granted because Order 52 rule 2(1) requires leave; leave to commence committal proceedings was refused because service was irregular, supporting affirmations failed to disclose required particulars, the evidence did not establish that the named respondents personally committed breaches or that they had agents who did so, and the attempt to make them responsible for the acts of numerous unnamed protestors constituted a serious abuse of the application.

Citation
CAPITAL SOURCE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 1st AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as Office 3301 and Office 3302 on 33rd Floor The World Trade Centre AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CAPITAL SOURCE HOLDINGS LIMITED; 1st Plaintiff: CLIMAX SOURCES HOLDINGS LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: SUNWORLD HOLDINGS LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: EASY START HOLDINGS LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: LEGEND SMART HOODINGS LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: CAPITAL FULL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; 4th Plaintiff: BEST LEGEND INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; 5th Plaintiff: DIGITAL CROWN HOLDINGS (HK) LIMITED; 1st Defendant: PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 1st AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as Office 3301 and Office 3302 on 33rd Floor The World Trade Centre also known as The World Trade Centre Building No.280 Gloucester Road Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 1st AND 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES; 2nd Defendant: PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINIG WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 2nd AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as Yue King Building (Whole Block), 26-30 Canal Road West, Wan Chai, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 2nd AND 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES; 3rd Defendant: PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 3rd AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTY known as 14th Floor East Point Centre, No.555 Hennessy Road, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 3rd AND 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTY; 4th Defendant: PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 4th AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as OFFICES UNIT 1, UNIT 2, UNIT 3, UNIT 4, UNIT 5, UNIT 6, UNIT 7, UNIT 8, UNIT 9 on 12th Floor, AXA CENTRE, NO.151, Gloucester Road, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 4th AND 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES; 5th Defendant: PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 5th PLAINTIFF AT THE PROPERTY known as 2/F, No.68 Yee Woo Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES; 6th Defendant: PERSONS THREATENING TO ENTER OR REMAIN WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 5th PLAINTIFF AT THE PROPERTY known as 12/F, Cameron Commercial Centre, 458-468 Hennessy Road, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong; AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES; 7th Defendant: PERSONS THREATENING TO ENTER OR REMAIN WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 5th PLAINTIFF AT THE PROPERTY known as 3 Sharp Street West, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong; AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES; 8th Defendant: PERSONS THREATENING TO ENTER OR REMAIN WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 5th PLAINTIFF AT THE PROPERTY known as 8th Floor, Room 04-08, 68 Yee Woo Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 January 2014
Case Number
HCA2119/2013
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Committal and Alternative Application for Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings / Hearing and Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Apply for Committal, Service Irregularity and Translation of Orders, Principal Agent Liability for Protests, Identification of Respondents, Dismissal for Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contempt/committal Injunctions Property Law Agency Law Abuse of Process Leave to Apply for Committal Service Irregularity and Translation of Orders +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAPITAL SOURCE HOLDINGS LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

CLIMAX SOURCES HOLDINGS LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

SUNWORLD HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

EASY START HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

LEGEND SMART HOODINGS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

CAPITAL FULL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

BEST LEGEND INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED

4th Plaintiff

DIGITAL CROWN HOLDINGS (HK) LIMITED

5th Plaintiff

PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 1st AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as Office 3301 and Office 3302 on 33rd Floor The World Trade Centre also known as The World Trade Centre Building No.280 Gloucester Road Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 1st AND 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES

1st Defendant

PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINIG WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 2nd AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as Yue King Building (Whole Block), 26-30 Canal Road West, Wan Chai, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 2nd AND 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES

2nd Defendant

PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 3rd AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTY known as 14th Floor East Point Centre, No.555 Hennessy Road, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 3rd AND 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTY

3rd Defendant

PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 4th AND 5th PLAINTIFFS AT THE PROPERTIES known as OFFICES UNIT 1, UNIT 2, UNIT 3, UNIT 4, UNIT 5, UNIT 6, UNIT 7, UNIT 8, UNIT 9 on 12th Floor, AXA CENTRE, NO.151, Gloucester Road, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 4th AND 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES

4th Defendant

PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 5th PLAINTIFF AT THE PROPERTY known as 2/F, No.68 Yee Woo Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES

5th Defendant

PERSONS THREATENING TO ENTER OR REMAIN WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 5th PLAINTIFF AT THE PROPERTY known as 12/F, Cameron Commercial Centre, 458-468 Hennessy Road, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong; AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES

6th Defendant

PERSONS THREATENING TO ENTER OR REMAIN WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 5th PLAINTIFF AT THE PROPERTY known as 3 Sharp Street West, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong; AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES

7th Defendant

PERSONS THREATENING TO ENTER OR REMAIN WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE 5th PLAINTIFF AT THE PROPERTY known as 8th Floor, Room 04-08, 68 Yee Woo Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE 5th PLAINTIFFS LAWFUL USE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application for Committal and Alternative Application for Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings / Hearing and Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an ex parte committal order can be granted without leave under Order 52 rule 2(1)
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to commence committal proceedings against four mainland residents
  3. 3 Whether the evidence links the named respondents to the alleged breaches or establishes agency for unnamed protestors

Ratio Decidendi

Ex parte committal could not be granted because Order 52 rule 2(1) requires leave; leave to commence committal proceedings was refused because service was irregular, supporting affirmations failed to disclose required particulars, the evidence did not establish that the named respondents personally committed breaches or that they had agents who did so, and the attempt to make them responsible for the acts of numerous unnamed protestors constituted a serious abuse of the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Ex parte application for committal dismissed (contrary to Order 52 rule 2(1)).
  • Alternative application for leave to commence committal proceedings refused.