CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG v. HANS RICHARD MAHNCKE

HCA 935/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 935 OF 2014

____________

____________

_____________

DECISION
_____________

1.  This is an application by the plaintiff under O19 r 7. There is also an Order 14 application.

2.  If there is a viable case pleaded in the Statement of Claim which also shows the plaintiff’s need for declaratory relief, the application under O19 r 7 is sufficient.  The court need not proceed to consider whether the defendant has any defence to the claims.  Hence, the Order 14 summons should not have been issued.

3.  This action is to enforce a separation agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff made on 13 June 2013.  By this agreement, the plaintiff paid the defendant a settlement sum in return for a mutual release of all claims that one may bring against the other.  The defendant by this agreement also agreed to release all claims against a host of people related the plaintiff, including those sitting in its council, those who are its teaching and supporting staff and its students.

4.  The Statement of Claim says that the defendant has taken the settlement payment but breached the agreement.  The defendant has also reneged on the agreement by claiming that the plaintiff had breached it, but without foundation.  The plaintiff now seeks various reliefs.  I think the plaintiff is entitled to some of these reliefs, including declaratory reliefs.

5.  I declare that the separation agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant on 13 June 2013 is valid and binding on the defendant.

6.  I also declare that the deed poll in the form set out in Schedule 2 to the separation agreement and executed by the defendant is valid and binding on the defendant.

7.  I further declare that the defendant is not entitled to withdraw or retract the statement made by him on 13 June 2013 in the form set out in Schedule 3 to the separation agreement and the statement in the form set out in Schedule 4 to the separation agreement.

8.  I also grant an injunction to restrain the defendant whether acting by himself, his agents or servants or otherwise howsoever from making, procuring or arranging to be made any disparaging statement of the plaintiff and any officer, employee, agent or council member, both past and present of the plaintiff to any person by any means whatsoever contrary to clause 6.1 of the separation agreement and/or clause 6 of the deed poll. 

9.  I also grant an injunction to restrain the defendant whether by himself, his agents or servants or otherwise howsoever from making or pursuing in any manner whatsoever any claims including any complaint, action, suit, cause of action (contractual, tortious or otherwise), proceeding, arbitration, liability, accounts, costs or expense including any legal costs or expense or demand arising under the provisions of any contract or statute including but not limited to the Employment Ordinance, any of the anti‑discrimination ordinances, the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, the City University of Hong Kong Ordinance or any regulations or provisions promulgated under such legislation or any policy or procedure issued by the plaintiff whether or not known at the date of the separation agreement or proceedings against any release except for proceedings to enforce the terms of the separation agreement or deed poll contrary to clause 3.1 or 3.3 of the separation agreement of clause 2 or 3 of the deed poll.

10.  I further grant an injunction to enjoin the defendant whether by himself, his agents or servants or otherwise howsoever from pursuing any of the claims made against Mr Joseph Kun in a letter from the defendant to Mr Kun dated 17 October 2013 in any manner whatsoever; an injunction to restrain the defendant whether by himself, his agents or servants or otherwise howsoever from pursuing any of the claims made against Professor Lee Kwok-on, Matthew in letters from the defendant to Professor Lee dated 1 November 2013 and 23 December 2013 in any manner whatsoever; and a further injunction to restrain the defendant whether by himself, his agents or servants or otherwise howsoever from pursuing the claims made against Lam Wai-keung Francis, in a letter from the defendant to Mr Lam dated 18 March 2014 in any manner whatsoever.

11.  I adjourn relief d, j, k, l, m in the summons sine die with liberty to restore. 

12.  I also order costs of the action including costs of this application be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, but I make no order as to costs on the Order 14 summons and the supporting affidavit filed and served thereof.  I also order that there be no costs for counsel’s attendance to this matter.