CHINA POLY INTERNATIONAL AUCTION LTD v. POLY AUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

HCA 2155/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2155 OF 2012

____________

BETWEEN

CHINA POLY INTERNATIONAL AUCTION LIMITED
(中國保利國際拍賣有限公司)
Plaintiff

and

POLY AUCTION (HONG KONG) LIMITED
(保利香港拍賣有限公司)
1st Defendant
BEIJING POLY INTERNATIONAL AUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
(北京保利國際拍賣有限公司)
2nd Defendant

____________

Before: Hon L Chan J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 22 November 2012
Date of Decision: 22 November 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.

(L. Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

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