|
HCMP 2735/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2735 OF 2016
______________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of EVERGLORY ENERGY LMITED (錦恒能源有限公司) (Company No. 1794202)
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER of sections 373 to 375 and 740 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622, Laws of Hong Kong)
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER of Order 24 of the Rules of High Court (Cap. 4A, Laws of Hong Kong)
|
______________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
SHIH-HUA INVESTMENT CO., LTD |
Applicant |
| and |
| |
ZHANG AIDONG (張愛東) |
1st Respondent |
| |
MOTIVI POINT CONSULTANT LIMITED |
2nd Respondent |
| |
EVERGLORY ENERGY LIMITED
(錦恒能源有限公司) |
3rd Respondent |
______________________
| Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: 14 December 2016 |
| Date of Decision: 14 December 2016 |
________________
D E C I S I O N
________________
1. The position before the court this morning is as follows. The applicant is prima facie entitled to the relief sought in the originating summons. There is technically no evidence filed by the respondents in opposition to this application.
2. The evidence filed by the respondents without leave essentially advances one argument, namely, that the applicant has been abusing and will abuse the confidential information of the 3rd respondent for its own gain.
3. I have to say that this “disorganized” position of the respondents, as described by Mr Wong appearing for them with Ms Au, is quite unattractive bearing in mind that when the parties last came before this court it was indicated to the respondents that there is normally no defence to an application of the present type.
4. Balancing the conflicting interests in this case, I believe that the best course to be adopted is to grant the order sought in the originating summons with an undertaking in terms similar to those set out in §55 of Tsai Shao Chung v Asia Television Ltd [2012] 4 HKLRD 52 at 68. The undertaking is accepted by Mr Maurellet SC for the applicant. This course will best meet the justice of the case and resolve these matters expediously with the minimum of costs.
5. I therefore make an order in terms of the originating summons as amended, subject to the aforesaid undertaking. Finally, I order that the costs of this application be to the applicant.
| |
(Anthony Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr Jose Maurellet SC, instructed by Alvan Liu & Partners, for the applicant
Mr Martin Wong and Ms Astina Au, instructed by Jun He Law Offices for the 1st and 2nd respondents
The 3rd respondent was not represented and did not appear
|