DYNAMIC WAY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. HO KUI CHEE AND OTHERS

DYNAMIC WAY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. HO KUI CHEE AND OTHERS

Clause 12 restrictive covenant was void for excessive breadth and unenforceable; no sufficient evidence of a conspiracy between the 1st and 4th Defendants to injure the Plaintiffs; the 1st Defendant breached his fiduciary duty by supplying and installing the 4m mock-up shutter for the 4th Defendant in circumstances foreseeably detrimental to the 2nd Plaintiff and Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs proved unaccounted materials and are entitled to judgment for those sums; Defendants' counterclaim for unpaid works is partly allowed; the Plaintiffs' Third Letter was not protected by justification or qualified privilege and defamation awards are appropriate as assessed.

Citation
DYNAMIC WAY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. HO KUI CHEE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Dynamic Way International Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Dynamic Way Engineering Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Ho Kui Chee; 2nd Defendant: Ho Ka Cheung; 3rd Defendant: Focus Roller Shutter Limited; 4th Defendant: Forceway Industrial Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 November 2001
Case Number
HCA16149/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Judgment at First Instance (court of First Instance)
Outcome
mixed: plaintiffs partially successful and defendants partially successful; restrictive covenant struck out; liability for breach of fiduciary duty against 1st Defendant established (damages to be assessed); various monetary judgments entered and counterclaims partly allowed; defamation claims partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenant Enforceability, Breach of Director's Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy and Trade Injury, Breach of Confidence, Unaccounted Materials and Restitution, Counterclaims for Unpaid Works, Qualified Privilege in Defamation, Damages Assessment
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Company Law Equity and Fiduciary Duties Tort Defamation Conspiracy to Injure Trade Confidentiality Restrictive Covenant Enforceability Breach of Director's Fiduciary Duty +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dynamic Way International Limited

1st Plaintiff

Dynamic Way Engineering Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Ho Kui Chee

1st Defendant

Ho Ka Cheung

2nd Defendant

Focus Roller Shutter Limited

3rd Defendant

Forceway Industrial Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Judgment at First Instance (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether Clause 12 restrictive covenant was reasonable and enforceable
  2. 2 whether the 1st and 4th Defendants conspired to injure the Plaintiffs on the Tung Chung Project
  3. 3 whether the 1st Defendant breached his fiduciary duty as director of the 2nd Plaintiff by assisting competitors and supplying the 4m mock-up shutter

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 12 restrictive covenant was void for excessive breadth and unenforceable; no sufficient evidence of a conspiracy between the 1st and 4th Defendants to injure the Plaintiffs; the 1st Defendant breached his fiduciary duty by supplying and installing the 4m mock-up shutter for the 4th Defendant in circumstances foreseeably detrimental to the 2nd Plaintiff and Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs proved unaccounted materials and are entitled to judgment for those sums; Defendants' counterclaim for unpaid works is partly allowed; the Plaintiffs' Third Letter was not protected by justification or qualified privilege and defamation awards are appropriate as assessed.

Court Disposition

mixed: plaintiffs partially successful and defendants partially successful; restrictive covenant struck out; liability for breach of fiduciary duty against 1st Defendant established (damages to be assessed); various monetary judgments entered and counterclaims partly allowed; defamation claims partly allowed.