12 Jan 2012
KEEP BRIGHT LTD v. SUPER AUTO INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
- Citation
- KEEP BRIGHT LTD v. SUPER AUTO INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCCT16/2010
Application to vary the injunction was dismissed because the defendants had legal representation and full opportunity at the substantive hearing when they gave the undertaking; they failed to show any new circumstances or good grounds arising after the injunction; Mainland decisions and procedural changes do not, of themselves, justify variation because the changes may divest control of the 3rd Defendant and frustrate the plaintiff's eventual remedy; accordingly the injunction must remain until the Agreement's validity is finally determined.