SOLAR SYSTEM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. UNISION-WATCH MANUFACTURING LTD. & ANOTHER

HCA 1/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1 OF 2001

____________

____________

___________________________________

R E A S O N S   F O R    S E N T E N C E

__________________________________

1. As said by Stone J in the case of Abu Dhabi (at p.336E), one of the purpose of contempt proceedings is the signal importance of demonstrating to litigants that orders of court are to be obeyed. Further, as I said in my judgment at p.23 letter H, it is high time that a director should be made aware of his personal duty regarding court orders made against his company.

2. Unfortunately, Mr Bok today still submitted to me that the present case is just an academic exercise and suggested implicitly that this is just a trivial matter. I reiterated that breach of an injunction is a serious matter, even if it is not a deliberate breach, a litigant in breach of a court order (and that includes a director who fails to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance by his company) could not expect the court to view the matter as an academic exercise. A prison sentence is normally warranted.

3. In the present case, I accept that the advertisement at the website has been terminated and therefore the contempt has been purged. However, it was still a serious breach of the injunction. I bear in mind what Mr Bok said to me by way of mitigation as to the background of the Contemnors. However, in the absence of proper and concrete evidence as to the financial position of the Contemnors, I do not accept that they are totally out of means as suggested by Mr Bok although they might be sued by others. I do not see any good reason for departing from the normal rule as stated by me.

4. I regard that it is appropriate in the present circumstances to impose a prison sentence of 14 days against the 2nd Contemnor. With regard to the 1st Contemnor, no real purpose would be served by issuing a writ of sequestration. I impose a fine of $50,000.00 against the 1st Contemnor in lieu of that. I also order that the Contemnors do pay the costs of the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.