Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Negative covenant

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2020

GRAND POWER INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHAN SING HOI ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 704
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV116/2019

The court granted an extension of time to the 1st respondent to file the notice of motion but refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the questions advanced were either too broad, not of great general or public importance, or involved application of established discretionary principles to particular facts; the court held its exercise of discretion in granting injunctions and declarations was appropriate and not vitiated by error.
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.
13 Jun 2007

JACK GORDON LESLIE SMITH AND ANOTHER v. TAM MICHAEL WING WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

JACK GORDON LESLIE SMITH AND ANOTHER v. TAM MICHAEL WING WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2638/2004

There was a serious question to be tried on both excessive amplified noise and improper disposal of cigarette butts; acoustic monitoring and forensic evidence, the proximity and frequency of conduct, and the framing of the DMC negative covenant justified the exercise of the court's discretion to grant interlocutory injunctive relief in the refined form proposed by the claimants pending trial.
21 Nov 2003

TOP TALENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TOP SYSTEM INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

TOP TALENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TOP SYSTEM INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3120/2003

Having found a serious question to be tried and that the tenancy incorporated the DMC negative covenant prohibiting hotel/boarding house use, and absent special circumstances or clear estoppel, the court will normally grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from using the premises as a hotel and to remove external signage; potential hardship to the defendant (including lost profits and sunk costs) did not outweigh the need to enforce the negative covenant pending trial.
16 Aug 2002

HARROTS LTD. v. GREAT HOPE INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

HARROTS LTD. v. GREAT HOPE INVESTMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2786/2002

The court was satisfied it had jurisdiction to grant interlocutory mandatory relief to unwind a completed breach of a negative covenant; on the balance of justice and on a sufficient degree of assurance that the plaintiff may establish breach at trial, and given the order preserves the status quo and reduces risk to SCA finance and operations, the interlocutory mandatory injunction should be granted.
23 Jul 2001

BEACON COLLEGE LTD. v. YIU MAN HAU, ALFRED AND OTHERS

Citation

BEACON COLLEGE LTD. v. YIU MAN HAU, ALFRED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2532/2001

Interim injunctions were continued until trial because the plaintiff demonstrated a legitimate territory‑wide interest, the defendants retained reasonable alternative employment (notably government or government‑aided schools) so that injunction would not compel specific performance or leave them destitute, and the plaintiff offered undertakings that preserve defendants' interim positions making continuation just and equitable.
23 Jul 2001

BEACON COLLEGE LTD. v. YIU MAN HAU, ALFRED AND OTHERS

Citation

BEACON COLLEGE LTD. v. YIU MAN HAU, ALFRED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2529/2001

The interim injunctions were continued because enforcing the negative covenants by injunction would not compel defendants to perform positive obligations or drive them to idleness: they have realistic alternative employment (government or government‑aided schools), the plaintiff has a legitimate territory‑wide interest given its advertising and reputation, and the plaintiff’s undertakings (class allocation, non‑cancellation, timely payment advances) sufficiently mitigate hardship pending trial.
18 Feb 1997

Mass Transit Railway Corporation v. WONG Ming Tak Mercedes and Another

Citation

Mass Transit Railway Corporation v. WONG Ming Tak Mercedes and Another
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM79/1996

A permanent injunction was warranted to enforce the express negative covenant in the deed of mutual covenant because the respondents admitted breach and the doctrine of acquiescence did not apply or was not established on the evidence.
9 Feb 1994

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SOUTH SEAS CENTRE, MODY ROAD v. GREAT TREASURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SOUTH SEAS CENTRE, MODY ROAD v. GREAT TREASURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV191/1993

On a provisional construction the Deed's express negative stipulations (Clauses g, l and m) are breached by the defendant's maintenance of the signs without prior written consent; where a defendant proposes to act in breach of such a covenant the court will normally grant interlocutory relief to preserve the status quo pending trial unless special circumstances or equitable considerations strongly outweigh doing so; applying that principle the appeal is allowed and an interlocutory injunction is appropriate.
9 Feb 1994

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SOUTH SEAS CENTRE, MODY ROAD v. GREAT TREASURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SOUTH SEAS CENTRE, MODY ROAD v. GREAT TREASURE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/1994

On provisional construction the defendant's maintenance of the signs without plaintiffs' consent breached the express negative stipulations in the Deed of Mutual Covenant; no special circumstances or discretionary considerations existed to outweigh the plaintiffs' right, and therefore the appeal is allowed and an interlocutory injunction granted to preserve the status quo pending trial.