HUEY TAI INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LEE SO MAN, GINA AND OTHERS

HUEY TAI INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LEE SO MAN, GINA AND OTHERS

The Court held that the defendants' affidavits failed to disclose any real triable issue under Order 14 r.3 because the workers had no legitimate right to remain on the plaintiff's premises and the first and second defendants actively participated in demonstrations; therefore final relief under Order 14 r.1 was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HUEY TAI INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LEE SO MAN, GINA AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): HUEY TAI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 1st Defendant (1st Respondent): LEE SO-MAN, GINA; 2nd Defendant (2nd Respondent): MOK WANG-YUI, TONY; 3rd Defendant (3rd Respondent): APOLLO DESIGN LIMITED trading in the name of APOLLO DESIGN & CONTRACTING
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 June 1993
Case Number
CACV35/1993
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Chambers Order on Order 14 Application (interlocutory/injunction Matter)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Leong J of 22 February 1993 set aside in part and final relief under Order 14 r.1 granted to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Injunction, Trespass, Nuisance, Counterclaim, Stay of Proceedings Under Arbitration Ordinance, Freedom of Expression (bill of Rights)
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Contract Arbitration Equity Summary Judgment (order 14) Injunction Trespass +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HUEY TAI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Plaintiff (appellant)

LEE SO-MAN, GINA

1st Defendant (1st Respondent)

MOK WANG-YUI, TONY

2nd Defendant (2nd Respondent)

APOLLO DESIGN LIMITED trading in the name of APOLLO DESIGN & CONTRACTING

3rd Defendant (3rd Respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Chambers Order on Order 14 Application (interlocutory/injunction Matter)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant affidavits disclosed any real triable issue under Order 14 r.3 RSC
  2. 2 Whether the workers had any legitimate right to remain on the plaintiff's premises
  3. 3 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants were parties to nuisance/trespass by participating in demonstrations

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the defendants' affidavits failed to disclose any real triable issue under Order 14 r.3 because the workers had no legitimate right to remain on the plaintiff's premises and the first and second defendants actively participated in demonstrations; therefore final relief under Order 14 r.1 was appropriate and the judge below erred in refusing it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Leong J of 22 February 1993 set aside in part and final relief under Order 14 r.1 granted to plaintiff

Orders

  • Set aside the learned judge's decision refusing final judgment under Order 14 r.1 and make the order in terms of paragraph 1 of the plaintiff's summons dated 23 December 1992 (final injunction as sought)
  • Costs of the action and of the appeal to be paid to the plaintiff