HORST JOACHIM FRANZ GEICKE v. I-ONASIA LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 2379/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 2379 OF 2009

------------------------

----------------------

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

----------------------

Background

1.  On 26 November 2009, the plaintiff by way of ex‑parte application obtained an injunction against the 3 defendants restraining them from assaulting, molesting, harassing, threatening, communicating or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff and his two children within the vicinity of the plaintiff’s home or any other place in any manner whatsoever.  By the return date on 4 December 2009, the 3 defendants gave an undertaking in lieu of the aforesaid injunction order to the same effects. 

The Application

2.  2 years later on 6 December 2011, the defendants applied to be discharged from their undertaking given by them as aforesaid.

3.  The main ground of the application is that they had obtained new evidence that they had never, in the course of the surveillance business at the instructions of the plaintiff’s wife, committed any of the aforesaid acts in respect of the plaintiff or his two children.  The new evidence they obtained was the CCTV footage in the evening of 20 November 2009 at the lobby of the plaintiff’s home. 

4.  The Video recording was shown to the Court.  However, as there was no audio recording, the video recording shows two parties were confronting each other but what the parties said was not clear. 

5.  I accept the submission of Counsel for the plaintiff that there was no “significant change of circumstances, or the party has become aware of facts which he could not reasonably have known, and found out, in time for the first encounter”.  Further “there has been no change in the potential ability of the defendants to resist the plaintiff’s motion successfully, sufficient to justify a court in discharging or modifying the undertakings which the defendants then offered and gave.”  (See Chanel Ltd v Woolworth Co [1981] 1 WLR 485 at 492H‑493B per Buckley LJ).

6.  The defendants, being in the surveillance business, should have known that CCTV was installed at the lobby.  They could have asked for the CCTV footage before they gave their undertaking.  Although they complained that it took them quite some time to obtain the footage, they could have asked for an adjournment on the return date and file affidavit to contest the application.  Instead they voluntarily gave the undertaking without any application for an adjournment. They should not be allowed, on this piece of inconclusive evidence adduced, to be released from their undertaking. 

Further ground

7.  There was an incidental ground relied on by the defendants and that is the plaintiff’s solicitor’s letter dated 17 May 2011 in which it was said that the plaintiff is not interested to proceed with the action.  Reading the correspondences as a whole, this was just a desire to settle the case as soon as possible and not to proceed if they should manage to reach a settlement.  However it was the plaintiff’s wife who actually funded the defendants in this case and she was not willing to settle.  I do not find the correspondences show that the plaintiff intend to warehouse this action. In any event the defendants could have proceeded to trial.

8.  For the aforesaid reasons the defendants’ application was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.  Costs shall be taxed on common fund basis, if not agreed, and paid forthwith.  Here I also accept the submissions of Mr John Scott SC for the plaintiff that this application should not have been taken out on the inconclusive evidence adduced under the disguise of new evidence coming to light.