10 Nov 2014
GOLDON INVESTMENT LTD v. PERSONS WHO ERECTED OR PLACED OR MAINTAINED OBSTRUCTIONS OR OTHERWISE DO ANY ACT TO CAUSE OBSTRUCTION, OR TO PREVENT OR HINDER THE CLEARANCE AND REMOVAL OF THE OBSTRUCTIONS AT THE ENTRANCES OR EXITS OF CITIC TOWER, 1. TIM MEI AVENUE, CENTRAL, HONG KONG (“CITIC TOWER”), AND/OR THE VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN PASSAGEWAY AT TIM MEI AVENUE AND/OR LUNG WUI ROAD WHICH BLOCK VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO CITIC TOWER AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- GOLDON INVESTMENT LTD v. PERSONS WHO ERECTED OR PLACED OR MAINTAINED OBSTRUCTIONS OR OTHERWISE DO ANY ACT TO CAUSE OBSTRUCTION, OR TO PREVENT OR HINDER THE CLEARANCE AND REMOVAL OF THE OBSTRUCTIONS AT THE ENTRANCES OR EXITS OF CITIC TOWER, 1. TIM MEI AVENUE, CENTRAL, HONG KONG (“CITIC TOWER”), AND/OR THE VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN PASSAGEWAY AT TIM MEI AVENUE AND/OR LUNG WUI ROAD WHICH BLOCK VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO CITIC TOWER AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA2094/2014
The court found plaintiffs had at least a triable case that they suffered particular, substantial and direct damage from the public nuisance and that damages would be inadequate; accordingly the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the interlocutory injunctions (Mongkok Injunctions and CITIC Tower Injunction). The court further held it was appropriate to direct bailiffs to assist enforcement and to include a police authorisation allowing officers to arrest persons reasonably suspected of obstructing bailiffs (criminal contempt) provided the person is warned, and ordered costs again…