IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 2155 OF 2012
D E C I S I O N
1. The plaintiff is a HK$10,000 company with its registered office at a secretarial service company and no business address.
2. There is no evidence of the plaintiff having done the business of auction in Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world. There is alsono evidence that the plaintiff will be conducting any auction business in Hong Kong in the foreseeable future.
3. The plaintiff should have given instructions on these matters to its solicitors and for the same to be disclosed in the supportingaffidavit but this was not done.
4. There is no evidence of any asset of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction.
5. There is also no evidence of what loss that the plaintiff may suffer that cannot be compensated with damages.
6. Instead, the letter dated 19 November 2012 from the plaintiff’s solicitors indicated that the plaintiff may be contented with licencefees; hence damages may be an adequate remedy to the plaintiff.
7. There is also credible evidence that if the defendants are enjoined from conducting the auction, they will suffer damages of up toHK$10,000,000 or more.
8. The defendants’ attacks on the ground of material non-disclosure are not on flimsy grounds too.
9. For these reasons, I will uplift the injunction granted yesterday until the conclusion of the auction to be held by the defendantscommencing 24 November.
10. The injunction will be in force again after the conclusion of this event in Hong Kong and its continuation will be considered onthe returnable day.
11. The plaintiff should also provide a draft amended order for the ex parte injunction granted yesterday which should contain the usual undertakings. The costs of today be reserved.
Mr Ronny Tong, SC, Mr Hectar Pun and Mr Earl Deng, instructed by JCC Cheung & Co, for the plaintiff
Mr John Yan, SC and Mr C W Ling, instructed by ONC Lawyers, for the 1st and 2nd defendants