RORY MACDIARMID AND ANOTHER v. PARAYEAR INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

RORY MACDIARMID AND ANOTHER v. PARAYEAR INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

The plaintiffs were properly entitled to treat the 2nd defendant as the landlord in the absence of notice of assignment; the 2nd defendant and its advisers caused and prolonged the confusion by failing to respond and by filing misleading material, and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to costs while the injunction against the 2nd defendant was discharged.

Citation
RORY MACDIARMID AND ANOTHER v. PARAYEAR INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Rory Macdiarmid; 2nd Plaintiff: Barclays De Zoete Wedd (Asia) Ltd.; 1st Defendant: Parayear Investment Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Loi Hing Investment Company Ltd.; 3rd Defendant: Tri-Hagen International Co. Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 August 1989
Case Number
HCA4053/1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Nuisance and Injunction (landlord and Tenant) / Inter Partes Summons Following Ex Parte Injunction; Judgment on Discharge and Costs
Outcome
Injunction against the 2nd defendant discharged; costs awarded to plaintiffs against the 2nd defendant.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Interim Injunction, Assignment of Lease, Service of Process, Costs, Party Joinder
Source Language
EN
Civil Tort Property Equity Landlord and Tenant Costs Nuisance Interim Injunction +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rory Macdiarmid

1st Plaintiff

Barclays De Zoete Wedd (Asia) Ltd.

2nd Plaintiff

Parayear Investment Ltd.

1st Defendant

Loi Hing Investment Company Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Tri-Hagen International Co. Ltd.

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Nuisance and Injunction (landlord and Tenant) / Inter Partes Summons Following Ex Parte Injunction; Judgment on Discharge and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs were justified in naming the 2nd defendant and obtaining an ex parte injunction despite an assignment of the lease
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant's conduct warranted an order for costs in favour of the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether the injunction should be discharged as against the 2nd defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were properly entitled to treat the 2nd defendant as the landlord in the absence of notice of assignment; the 2nd defendant and its advisers caused and prolonged the confusion by failing to respond and by filing misleading material, and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to costs while the injunction against the 2nd defendant was discharged.

Court Disposition

Injunction against the 2nd defendant discharged; costs awarded to plaintiffs against the 2nd defendant.

Orders

  • Injunction against the 2nd defendant (Loi Hing Investment Company Ltd.) discharged
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs to be paid by the 2nd defendant