Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Serious question to be tried

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2019

STUDIO FITNESS GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS v. M&M SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 515
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5853/2018

Although plaintiffs demonstrated a prospect of success on the restraint clauses (satisfying the 'serious question' limb), the balance of convenience favored the defendants because granting injunctions would effectively dispose of the action given the imminent expiry of the clauses, the 2nd defendant was not using the Studio Fitness brand or marks and any alleged misuse (eg trade secrets) appeared compensable by damages, plaintiffs' undertaking in damages lacked evidence of means, and an injunction would cause disproportionate and possibly terminal harm to the 2nd defendant's business; accordi…
7 Sept 2018

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN also known as CHEN HA PING CHEN TING HOI also known as CHEN HOI AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL also known as CHEN TING SAN and DANIEL CHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2289
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP86/2018

The court granted leave because the proposed alternative claim constituted a bona fide cause of action, satisfied the low threshold of a serious question to be tried and was not demurrable or plainly without substance; potential conflicts of interest were not a bar because all interested parties would be before the court and there was no material disadvantage to the company, so it was in the company's interests to grant leave.
28 Jan 2016

ASHOK KODUMAL HEMNANI v. PRIMLAKS (HK) LTD

Citation

ASHOK KODUMAL HEMNANI v. PRIMLAKS (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1789/2015

The court granted leave under s.733 because on the face of the application the Applicant demonstrated a serious question to be tried with some prospect of success and it appeared prima facie to be in the company's interests to pursue the claims; there was no evidence that the board had considered the matters (board deadlock) and allegations challenging the existence of facts and evidence were insufficient to defeat the low threshold for leave.
23 Aug 2012

SHERRYKNOLL ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v. GRAND POWER LTD

Citation

SHERRYKNOLL ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v. GRAND POWER LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1599/2009

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show reasonable prospects of success; the judge found only serious questions to be tried, concluded the discretionary balance of convenience (including adequacy of damages, undertakings, risk of empty judgment and share price evidence) did not favour granting leave, and therefore refused leave and awarded costs to the defendant.
25 Apr 2012

HUNG MAU DESIGN & CONTRACTING LTD AND ANOTHER 對. LAU KIN SAU t/a KIN SUN DECORATION & ENG CO

Citation

HUNG MAU DESIGN & CONTRACTING LTD AND ANOTHER 對. LAU KIN SAU t/a KIN SUN DECORATION & ENG CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1459/2011

There was sufficient evidence to establish a serious question to be tried that the defendant, by way of an agent, engaged in harassment/defamatory conduct; the balance of convenience favoured continuation because plaintiffs would suffer irreparable non-monetary harm and the injunction, as modified to remove overbroad prohibition, does not prevent legitimate debt recovery; accordingly the interim injunction was continued until trial and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
28 Mar 2012

KUN PENG I LTD AND ANOTHER v. WIN POWER INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KUN PENG I LTD AND ANOTHER v. WIN POWER INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA475/2012

On the limited evidence before the court the applicant did not establish that the negative covenant in clause 6.5 clearly applied to the 2nd defendant's claim or that there was a breach or threatened breach justifying an immediate interim injunction; there is at most a serious question to be tried and the summons for injunction must be adjourned for evidence and fuller argument.
10 Feb 2012

TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2210/2011

Leave to appeal was granted because, on a broad view of the merits and having regard to the defendants' evidence of use, goodwill and investment, the defendants demonstrated a prospect of success that was more than fanciful and a credible risk of serious and potentially irreversible prejudice from the interlocutory injunction; absent the full reasons of the lower judge the appellate court should be permitted to review the exercise of discretion.
24 Jan 2008

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2005

D2 and D3 are proper or necessary parties within Order 11 r1(1)(c) and there is a serious question to be tried against them; the 1st defendant's admission that it was the employer does not preclude alternative pleadings or bind the plaintiff; accordingly the plaintiff's appeal is allowed and the court would, if necessary, grant leave for substituted service of the Amended Statement of Claim on D2 and D3.
17 Aug 2006

LAI KWOK YING v. PUBLIC WAY INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAI KWOK YING v. PUBLIC WAY INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4163/2005

The court found there was a serious question to be tried and on the balance of convenience the plaintiff required protection; the existing order/undertaking was continued and an injunction in terms sought by the plaintiff was made, the proposed terms were not fatally vague in context, and the 1st Defendant could not be divorced from acts of its director for purposes of the relief ordered.
6 Sept 2002

INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL NETWORK HOLDINGS LTD. v. CAPITAL ACE HOLDINGS LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL NETWORK HOLDINGS LTD. v. CAPITAL ACE HOLDINGS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV330/2002

The Court upheld the discharge of the ex parte interlocutory injunction: there was insufficient evidence of an existing intention to issue shares for an improper purpose to establish a serious question to be tried, the judge's reliance on regulatory safeguards and undertakings was within proper discretion, and the balance of convenience did not favour restraining the company's exercise of its powers to issue shares; Hadmor principles govern appellate review of interlocutory injunctions.