GOLDON INVESTMENT LTD v. PERSONS WHO ERECTED OR PLACED OR MAINTAINED OBSTRUCTIONS OR OTHERWISE DO ANY ACT TO CAUSE OBSTRUCTION, OR TO PREVENT OR HINDER THE CLEARANCE AND REMOVAL OF THE OBSTRUCTIONS AT THE ENTRANCES OR EXITS OF CITIC TOWER, 1 TIM MEI AVENUE, CENTRAL, HONG KONG (“CITIC TOWER”),AND/OR THE VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN PASSAGEWAY AT TIM MEI AVENUE AND/OR LUNG WUI ROAD WHICH BLOCK VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO CITIC TOWER

HCA 2094/2014
(HCZZ 137/2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2094 OF 2014

(INTENDED ACTION NO 137 OF 2014)

____________________

____________________

________________

R U L I N G

________________

1.  This is the third application for interim injunction arising from the recent “Occupy Central” Campaign that I need to deal with this evening.

2.  The plaintiff in this application is the owner of Citic Tower located in Admiralty.  The fire access, the entrance to the main car park and the emergency vehicular access to the building have all been blocked by the protestors, which triggered the present application.

3.  I would simply adopt what I have already said in the earlier judgment (HCA 2086/2014 and HCA 2104/2014, dated 20.10.2014) that I delivered a moment ago, about the proper approach to this type of applications and the law insofar as it is applicable to the present case.

4.  There can be no doubt that the plaintiff does have a serious question to be tried on their cause of action based on nuisance against the defendants.

5.  On the balance of convenience, the evidence, I think, is overwhelming.  The blockage to fire exits, the emergency vehicular access, and indeed the main vehicle access to the building, causes tremendous hazards and risks, which are real, to the safety and well being of the building and its occupiers.  An injunction is clearly in order.

6.  On the balance of convenience, I would also repeat what I have said in the earlier judgment which is equally applicable here.

7.  Perhaps I will just reiterate one particular point.  The court is not engaged with any political discussion.  The court is not the forum where political views are to be ventilated or argued.  The court is only to apply the law and to uphold the rule of law.  If the defendants are aggrieved, or feel aggrieved by the injunction that the court is going to make, they can return to court and have the matter properly argued so that their rights and obligations, together with the plaintiff’s rights and obligations, can be properly determined in accordance with the law, eschewing any political debate or consideration.  After all, this is how the rule of law operates in Hong Kong.

8.  Subject to the actual wording of the injunction, I am going to grant the relief.