WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND OTHERS

HCMP 632/2012 and
HCA 373/2014
(Consolidated)
[2019] HKCFI 517

HCMP 632/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 632 OF 2012

______________

______________

______________

AND

HCA 373/2014

ACTION NO 373 OF 2014

______________

______________

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of
Master K H Hui dated 13 October 2015)

______________

DECISION

______________

Introduction

1.  This matter comes before me on 8 February 2019 as the Summons Judge.  I shall only give brief reasons for my decision.

2.  This is the application by the 1^stdefendant (in HCMP 632/2012) (“D1”) by way of an inter partes Summons dated 1 February 2019 for inter alia certain interim relief against the 1^st plaintiff (“P1”).

Directions of further evidence

3.  I adjourn the Summons for substantive hearing, to a date to be fixed, with ½ day reserved.  I give the following directions on the filing of evidence:

   (a)   28 days from today for P1 and D2 to file evidence in response (if any);

   (b)   14 days thereafter for D1 to file evidence in reply (in any); and

   (c)   no further evidence be filed without leave.

Interim/interim relief

4.  D1 seeks urgent interim relief in terms of the injunction sought in the meantime.

5.  When deciding whether to grant any interim/interim relief, I apply the test of balance of fairness.

6.  This case has a long history.  The acts which D1 complains about took place during the course of the last several years.  The “New Crisis”(described as such by D1 at page 18 of his 6^thaffirmation) which sparked off this application concerned a judgment of a Mainland Court delivered on22 January 2019 (the “Judgment”).  By that Judgment, the Mainland Courtallowed P1’s claim[1] for revocation of the business licence of Xinxiang REC.  D1 claims that that Judgment justifies urgency.

7.  However, as I have pointed out in the course of the hearing,Xinxiang REC was represented[2]in that Mainland action by D1’s brother. D1 knew about that action.  But as recorded in the Judgment:

「第三人未向本院提交証据」 (p 3)

8.  When asked about this, Mr Lai, counsel for D1, was unable to tell me why D1 or his brother took no active role in that action, or why they did not try to put forward before the Mainland Court what D1 now seeks to put forward before this Court.

9.  I also note the multiple hearsay which D1 seeks to rely on at §27 of his 6^th affirmation.

10.  In the circumstances, given the not uncomplicated background and the history of the matters, and applying the “balance of fairness” test,I refuse to grant any urgent interim relief. 

11.  I will proceed to hear the parties on costs.