LO KIN SHING (also known as PAUL LO) v. FU CHAK MING

HCA 75/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 75 OF 2014

______________________

______________________

______________________

RULING

______________________

1.  I have heard submissions from Mr Lam, counsel for the plaintiff.  I have read the relevant papers and Mr Lam’s skeleton submissions.

2.  This is a case in which the plaintiff asks for a restraining order against the defendant from carrying out acts of nuisance, intimidation and harassment. 

3.  Having considered the affirmations of the plaintiff, I am satisfied there is a serious question to be tried.  As pointed out by Mr Lam, there is a CCTV footage and also reports made to the police.  As regards the balance of convenience, what is being sought is to restrain the defendant from carrying out inappropriate acts.  I see that plainly the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff.

4.  The defendant has not appeared in court today and the affirmations show that the relevant papers have been served.

5.  In the circumstances, I am prepared to grant the interlocutory injunction until there will be a final determination, subject always, of course, to the defendant’s right to apply for discharge.

6.  An issue has arisen as to whether the premises which the plaintiff proposes to bar the defendant from coming near should cover two premises where there is no evidence that specific acts of nuisance or harassment have been committed.  However, these addresses are addresses of the plaintiff and/or addresses of the plaintiff’s businesses.  Given the history of the matter and the evidence that shows, prima facie, that the defendant has carried out acts through himself or through his agents at a number of premises, it is appropriate to bring these two premises into the group of premises to be covered by the injunction.

7.  In the circumstances, I grant an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the draft order annexed to the second affirmation of the plaintiff dated 23 January 2014, being Exhibit LKS-13, save and except that:

(a) in the preamble the words “until further order” shall be replaced with “until trial of this action or until further order”; and

(b) in subparagraph (4) “50 metres” shall be replaced by “30 metres”.

8.  There be also an order in terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aforesaid draft order.