Centaline Property Agency Ltd v. Wong Chong Wai
Read the full judgment text of HCA 770/2004 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 2 April 2004 before Hon Reyes J.
1. The application has now been reduced to the injunction sought by §1(a) of the Summons. However, I do not think that the injunction sought thereby pursuant to a corresponding term of the restrictive covenant is couched in terms that are no wider than is necessary to protect the commercial interests of the Plaintiff, Centaline Property Agency Limited. My preliminary view is that the injunction sought under Summons §1(a) is too wide. Nor am I satisfied on the affidavit evidence before me that th
Legal issues: Scope of Injunction under Restrictive Covenant
Outcome: Summons dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCA000770/2004 HCA 770/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 770 OF 2004 ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Reyes J in Chambers Dates of Hearing: 2 April 2004 Date of Decision: 2 April 2004 ______________ D E C I S I O N ______________ 1.The application has now been reduced to the injunction sought by §1(a) of the Summons. However, I do not think that the injunction sought thereby pursuant to a corresponding term of the restrictive covenant is couched in terms that are no wider than is necessary to protect the commercial interests of the Plaintiff, Centaline Property Agency Limited. My preliminary view is that the injunction sought under Summons §1(a) is too wide. Nor am I satisfied on the affidavit evidence before me that there is a clear case (apart from a tenuously circumstantial and inferential one) that the Defendant has breached the restrictive covenant or threatens to do so. As far I can see from the evidence, for example, the Defendant has neither solicited nor touted for customers of the Plaintiff. Further, I have doubts whether the restrictive covenant protects any trade secrets or confidential information not already in the public domain that might be regarded as trade secrets belonging to the Plaintiff. The evidence on this issue strikes me as scant. 2.For these reasons, I dismiss the Summons.
Representation: Ms Winnie Tam, instructed by Messrs Cheung & Choy, for the Plaintiff The Defendant in person, absent |
Other judgments that cite this case