SUI CLARK ALEXANDER v. JUNXIA CHEN

SUI CLARK ALEXANDER v. JUNXIA CHEN

The court granted the interlocutory injunction because there was a serious issue to be tried in trespass/nuisance/possible harassment, damages would not be adequate, and the balance of convenience favored injunctive relief given the defendant's repeated uninvited entries, disturbances, threats and physical behaviour; the injunction was extended to include the plaintiff's workplace.

Citation
SUI CLARK ALEXANDER v. JUNXIA CHEN
Parties
Plaintiff: Sui Clark Alexander; Defendant: Junxia Chen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Case Number
HCA1563/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction (trespass/nuisance/harassment) / Inter Partes Summons Interlocutory Injunction Hearing in Chambers
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in terms of the order of 24 August 2013, extended to include the plaintiff's place of work; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Injunction, Trespass, Nuisance, Harassment, Paternity
Source Language
EN
Civil Tort Family Law Injunction Trespass Nuisance Harassment Paternity

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sui Clark Alexander

Plaintiff

Junxia Chen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction (trespass/nuisance/harassment) / Inter Partes Summons Interlocutory Injunction Hearing in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an interim injunction restraining the defendant from entering or remaining at the plaintiff's residence and workplace
  2. 2 Whether the alleged trespass, nuisance and harassment raise serious issues to be tried
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy and where the balance of convenience lies

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the interlocutory injunction because there was a serious issue to be tried in trespass/nuisance/possible harassment, damages would not be adequate, and the balance of convenience favored injunctive relief given the defendant's repeated uninvited entries, disturbances, threats and physical behaviour; the injunction was extended to include the plaintiff's workplace.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in terms of the order of 24 August 2013, extended to include the plaintiff's place of work; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from entering or remaining at the plaintiff's flat or workplace and from interfering with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of those premises
  • Defendant restrained from harassing, threatening or contacting the plaintiff, his family and friends