The University of Hong Kong v. Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Co Ltd and Another

HCMP 2801/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO2801 OF 2015

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.This is the return date of the ex-parte injunction granted by Deputy High Court Judge Seagroatt on 30 October 2015.

2.After the action had been discontinued against the 1^st defendant yesterday, a number of applications had been made by various persons, associations or companies, including the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the Honourable Mr Ip Kin-yuen, Mr Lau Yee-ching, Mr Lee Hei-shun, and the Apple Daily Limited for being joined into the action as a defendant or as interveners.  Affirmations were filed and skeleton arguments were also lodged by counsel, some yesterday evening and some this morning.

3.The matter has developed so rapidly and so recently that the plaintiff and its legal advisers say that they have not had an opportunity of digesting all the matters that have come in.  I myself have not been able to read in detail everything that has come in this morning, although all the documents that came in yesterday I did bring home to read.  This is not a criticism of the lateness of the various parties’ applications and materials but is simply the reality of the situation that we face. 

4.There are competing interests here at play.  Mr Smith has highlighted the fundamental principle of justice that I cannot make an adverse order against a party without giving that party a proper opportunity of being heard.  The opposing parties effectively say that there is nothing that could be said on behalf of the plaintiff.  They are effectively asking me to uphold all their points without giving the plaintiff a proper chance of response, albeit those points have been raised, as I said, only very recently.

5.In relation to the authority of the plaintiff, there has been some argument and a reference to clause 5.14 of the Guide and Code of Practice for Members of the Council which appears to allow certain matters to be dealt with by the Chairman alone where they could not wait until the next scheduled meeting.  Submissions have been made that there was no warrant in this case for the Chairman to have acted under that provision.  But the point is not, in my view, so clear that I can say the plaintiff will and can have no valid response.

6.Discharging the injunction now could quite possibly render the plaintiff’s application nugatory and that would defeat any interests that the plaintiff may have in the preservation of the confidentiality of the meetings of its Council. 

7.Balancing that against continuing the injunction, perhaps as suitably revised, clarified and limited, I think that, in the circumstances, I should adjourn the application to an early date and, with suitable variation, continue the injunction as an interim injunction pending the adjourned hearing.

Mr Clifford Smith, SC and Mr Martin Kok, instructed by Clifford Chance, for the plaintiff

The 1st defendant, represented by Lo & Lo (appearance exempted)

The 2^nd defendant was not represented and did not appear

Mr Jeffrey Tam, instructed by May Cheng & Co, for the intended intervener (Hong Kong Journalists Association)

Mr Alan Leong, SC Mr Earl Deng and Ms Tara Liao, instructed by Ho Tse Wai, Philip Li & Partners, for the intended intervener (Ip Kin-yuen)

Ms Linda Wong, instructed by Ho Tse Wai, Philip Li & Partners, for the intended intervener (Lau Yee-ching)

Mr Hectar Pun, SC and Ms Anson Wong Yu-yat, instructed by Ho Tse Wai, Philip Li & Partners, for the intended defendant (Lee Hei-shun)

Mr Martin C M Lee, SC and Mr Raymond Ho, instructed by Hampton, Winter and Glynn, for the intended defendant (Apple Daily Limited)