Charles Zhi v. The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Ltd and Others

HCA 1618/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1618 OF 2016

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.I dismissed the plaintiff’s summons for an interlocutory injunction on 30 June 2016 as against all the defendants except the 3^rd, 8^th and 16^th defendants with indemnity costs. As against those three defendants, the summons was withdrawn with leave with costs on the party and party basis.

2.The plaintiff now, by a summons dated 14 July 2016, seeks leave to appeal against my decision.  The plaintiff has meanwhile discontinued the action as against the 4^th and the 14^th defendants, so that these two defendants are no longer part of the proceedings, and have not appeared before me this morning.

3.As for the other defendants, I have received skeleton submissions from the 1^st defendant, the 2^nd defendant, the 3^rd and 9^th defendants, the 5^th defendant, the 6^th defendant, the 7^th defendant and the 13^th defendant. 

4.The 8^th, 10^th, 11^th and 16^th defendants did not appear this morning, but the other defendants have appeared either by solicitor or counsel. 

5.The present application must, in my view, fail.

(1)  The grant or refusal of an injunction involves in large part an exercise of the court’s discretion.  The Court of Appeal does not interfere unless there is something plainly wrong in my decision.  In my view, the plaintiff has failed to point out anything of that nature.  It is fanciful to suggest, as the plaintiff does in his affirmation and skeleton submission, that his right of access to the court under Article 35 of the Basic Law has been, in any way, impeded by my decision. 

(2)  The plaintiff’s final position on 30 June 2016, after some vacillation, was to ask to withdraw his summons.  As against the 3^rd, 8^th and 16^th defendants, that was exactly what I ordered.  As against the other defendants, I dismissed the summons, but the result was in substance the same as what the plaintiff asked for.  So I am at a loss to understand what complaint the plaintiff could have.

(3)  The plaintiff’s affirmation filed for the present application seems to suggest that there is some significant difference of opinion between Deputy Judge Seagroatt, as expressed in his reasons for decision dated 28 June 2016, and myself.  But all that I dealt with on 30 June 2016 was the plaintiff’s application for interlocutory injunction.  Having regard to Deputy Judge Seagroatt’s reasons for decision, in particular, paragraph 16 of that decision, I do not think his Lordship would have come to any different decision from mine. 

(4)  Finally, the order for indemnity costs against the plaintiff in relation to the defendants other than the 3^rd, 8^th and 16^th defendants was in my view justified. They were dragged to court at much expense for nothing.  I see no prospect of success in an appeal against that order since costs is very much a matter of discretion for this court, with which the Court of Appeal is unlikely to interfere. 

6.So the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

The plaintiff appeared in person

Mr Victor Dawes SC, instructed by Linklaters, for the 1^st defendant

Mr Eugene Kwok, instructed by Baker & McKenzie, for the 2^nd defendant

Mr Lau Kar-keung of Tso Au Yim & Yeung for the 3^rd and 9^th defendants

Mr K Kam of Sidley Austin for the 5^th defendant

Ms Bonita Chan of K & L Gates for the 6^th defendant

Mr Adrian Wong, instructed by Michael Li & Co, for the 7^th defendant

The 8^th defendant was not represented and did not appear

C K Chan & Co for the 10^th defendant did not appear

So Lung & Associates for the 11^th defendant did not appear

Mr Samuel Hung of Smyth & Co for the 12^th defendant

Ms E Wong of Mayer Brown JSM for the 13^th defendant

Ms Beattie of O’Melveny & Myers for the 15^th defendant

The 16^th defendant was not represented and did not appear