Read the full judgment text of CAMP 48/2024, CAMP 51/2024, CAMP 102/2024 & CAMP 121/2024 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 August 2024 before Kwan VP and G Lam JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – interlocutory injunctions – ex parte applications – material non-disclosure – case management – discovery – expert evidence – adjournment – stay of proceedings – Hotel Proprietors Ordinance (Cap 158) – s.63A(2) District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) – whether ex parte application for interlocutory injunction was properly made where there was no urgency or need for secrecy – whether plaintiff made material non-disclosure in failing to disclose prior dismissed ex parte application – test for granting interlocutory injunctions where injunction would extinguish defendant's lien and statutory right to sell under Hotel Proprietors Ordinance – whether 'high degree of assurance' threshold applied where practical consequence was to permanently deprive defendant of rights before trial – standard of appellate review of discretionary decisions – whether Court of Appeal should interfere with refusal of eleventh-hour adjournment – test for allowing re-amendment of pleadings under Order 18 rule 7(1) of Rules of the District Court (Cap 336H) – whether narrative about previous interlocutory proceedings constitutes material facts – whether mutual discovery of chattel inventories was properly ordered – relevance and centrality of inventory to claim for return of all chattels and missing items – whether expert evidence directions for loss adjusters were appropriate – whether refusal of stay of proceedings warranted appellate intervention – test under s.63A(2) of Cap 336 requiring reasonable prospect of success or other reason in the interests of justice – leave to appeal refused in all four applications CAMP 48/2024, CAMP 51/2024, CAMP 102/2024 and CAMP 121/2024 – plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs on indemnity basis in each application – plaintiff given 14 days to lodge objections to bill of costs – court warned directors of plaintiff company about potential personal costs orders under s.53(2) of Cap 336 and s.52A(2) of High Court Ordinance.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal test under s.63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance · Whether ex parte application for interlocutory injunction was properly made · Material non-disclosure in ex parte injunction application · Test for granting interlocutory injunctions and the 'high degree of assurance' threshold · Standard of appellate review of case management decisions · Whether refusal of adjournment at eleventh hour warranted appellate intervention · Test for allowing re-amendment of pleadings · Whether mutual discovery of chattel inventories was properly ordered · Whether expert evidence directions for loss adjusters were appropriate
Outcome: All four applications for leave to appeal (CAMP 48, 51, 102 and 121 of 2024) are refused. The plaintiff's summonses in all four applications are dismissed.
Cited by 13 cases · Cites 15 cases