CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD v. WONG CHONG WAI

HCA 770/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 770 OF 2004

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. The application has now been reduced to the injunction sought by §1(a) of the Summons. However, I do not think that the injunction sought thereby pursuant to a corresponding term of the restrictive covenant is couched in terms that are no wider than is necessary to protect the commercial interests of the Plaintiff, Centaline Property Agency Limited. My preliminary view is that the injunction sought under Summons §1(a) is too wide. Nor am I satisfied on the affidavit evidence before me that there is a clear case (apart from a tenuously circumstantial and inferential one) that the Defendant has breached the restrictive covenant or threatens to do so. As far I can see from the evidence, for example, the Defendant has neither solicited nor touted for customers of the Plaintiff. Further, I have doubts whether the restrictive covenant protects any trade secrets or confidential information not already in the public domain that might be regarded as trade secrets belonging to the Plaintiff. The evidence on this issue strikes me as scant.

2. For these reasons, I dismiss the Summons.