CHAU PO YUE v. LUI WAI HONG

DCCJ194/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 194 OF 2015

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

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.  On 6 February 2015, upon the plaintiff’s application by an inter partes summons, I granted an interlocutory injunction against the defendant, ordering the defendant (i) to deliver vacant possession of the premises referred to in the statement of claim, and (ii) to be restrained from trespassing on the premises, remaining or entering upon the premises, or interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.

2.  I further fixed in the injunction order a return hearing date for determining whether the interlocutory injunction that I have granted should be continued.

3.  The injunction order had been served on the defendant personally on 17 February 2015. It is however noted that although the defendant had filed an acknowledgement of service on 29 January 2015, indicating his intention to defend the proceedings, no defence has been served even after the time limit for the service of the defence had expired on 27 February 2015. 

4.  On 3 March 2015, the Director of Legal Aid filed a memorandum notifying the court of the defendant’s application for legal aid. On 4 March 2015, as a result of the 42 days’ statutory stay of the proceedings brought about by the notice of the defendant’s application for legal aid, the court wrote to both parties in the English and Chinese languages, notifying them of the vacation of the original hearing date and the re-fixing of a new hearing date on 17 April 2015, which is today.

5.  At the hearing this morning, the defendant was absent notwithstanding that the court’s letter to the defendant has not been returned. Neither has the defendant filed any defence nor any affirmation to oppose the continuation of the injunction order.

6.  In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the interlocutory injunction should be continued, and I accordingly grant the following orders:

(1) Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order I made on 6 February 2015 will remain in force until judgment unless it is varied or discharged by a further order of the court;

(2) Costs of and occasioned by this application be the plaintiff’s costs in the cause;

(3) Liberty to apply; and

(4) A Chinese translation of the order shall accompany the order.