CHIU LUEN PUBLIC LIGHT BUS CO LTD v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING OR REMAINING ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY NAMELY, THE WESTBOUND CARRIAGEWAY OF ARGYLE STREET BETWEEN THE JUNCTION OF TUNG CHOI STREET AND PORTLAND STREET AND/OR OTHER PERSONS HINDERING OR PREVENTING THE PASSING OR REPASSING OF ARGYLE STREET AND OTHERS

CHIU LUEN PUBLIC LIGHT BUS CO LTD v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING OR REMAINING ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY NAMELY, THE WESTBOUND CARRIAGEWAY OF ARGYLE STREET BETWEEN THE JUNCTION OF TUNG CHOI STREET AND PORTLAND STREET AND/OR OTHER PERSONS HINDERING OR PREVENTING THE PASSING OR REPASSING OF ARGYLE STREET AND OTHERS

On the evidence plaintiffs demonstrated at least triable issues that they suffered particular, substantial and direct damage from the occupations; damages would be inadequate and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunctions; bailiffs may be directed to assist and police may be authorised to arrest persons who obstruct bailiffs provided procedural safeguards; therefore the ex parte injunctions were continued and enforcement directions granted until trial or further order.

Citation
CHIU LUEN PUBLIC LIGHT BUS CO LTD v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING OR REMAINING ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY NAMELY, THE WESTBOUND CARRIAGEWAY OF ARGYLE STREET BETWEEN THE JUNCTION OF TUNG CHOI STREET AND PORTLAND STREET AND/OR OTHER PERSONS HINDERING OR PREVENTING THE PASSING OR REPASSING OF ARGYLE STREET AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (citic Tower Action): Goldon Investment Limited; Plaintiff (taxi Operators Action): Lai Hoi Ping; Plaintiff (taxi Operators Action): Tam Chun Hung; Plaintiff (minibus Manager Action): Unspecified Minibus Manager (plaintiff); 1st Defendant (unnamed Protestors): Persons who erected or placed or maintained obstructions (unnamed); 2nd Defendant (joined Defendant): Ng Ting Pong; 3rd Defendant (joined Defendant): Wai Pong Dominic / Dominic Fok; 4th Defendant (joined/appearing in Person): Chen Raymond; 2nd Defendant (citic Tower Action): Wong Yuen Ching; Non Party: Secretary for Justice
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 November 2014
Case Number
HCA2086/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Actions for Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance; Applications to Continue Interlocutory Injunctions and for Enforcement Directions / Inter Partes Applications to Continue Ex Parte Injunctions and Judgment at First Instance (directions Given)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions continued and enforcement directions granted
Legal Topics
Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, Interlocutory Injunction, Representative Action, Material Non Disclosure, Balance of Convenience, Contempt and Enforcement, Police Authorisation, Bailiff Powers, Rule of Law
Source Language
EN
Civil Tort Public Law Criminal Contempt Public Nuisance Private Nuisance Interlocutory Injunction Representative Action +6 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldon Investment Limited

Plaintiff (citic Tower Action)

Lai Hoi Ping

Plaintiff (taxi Operators Action)

Tam Chun Hung

Plaintiff (taxi Operators Action)

Unspecified Minibus Manager (plaintiff)

Plaintiff (minibus Manager Action)

Persons who erected or placed or maintained obstructions (unnamed)

1st Defendant (unnamed Protestors)

Ng Ting Pong

2nd Defendant (joined Defendant)

Wai Pong Dominic / Dominic Fok

3rd Defendant (joined Defendant)

Chen Raymond

4th Defendant (joined/appearing in Person)

Wong Yuen Ching

2nd Defendant (citic Tower Action)

Secretary for Justice

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Actions for Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance; Applications to Continue Interlocutory Injunctions and for Enforcement Directions / Inter Partes Applications to Continue Ex Parte Injunctions and Judgment at First Instance (directions Given)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether private plaintiffs have locus to sue in public nuisance (particular, substantial and direct damage)
  2. 2 Whether ex parte interlocutory injunctions should be continued on inter partes basis
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs committed material non-disclosure in ex parte applications

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence plaintiffs demonstrated at least triable issues that they suffered particular, substantial and direct damage from the occupations; damages would be inadequate and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the injunctions; bailiffs may be directed to assist and police may be authorised to arrest persons who obstruct bailiffs provided procedural safeguards; therefore the ex parte injunctions were continued and enforcement directions granted until trial or further order.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions continued and enforcement directions granted

Orders

  • Continue Mongkok injunctions (Taxi Operators and Minibus Manager Actions) until trial or further order as revised on hearing
  • Continue CITIC Tower injunction until trial or further order