Read the full judgment text of HCCT 16/2010 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 12 January 2012 before Hon Au J in Chambers.
Construction and arbitration proceedings — Interlocutory injunction — Variation application — Letter of intent for sale and purchase of shares relating to hotel assets in Mainland China — Disputes over validity and expiration of Agreement — Mainland court rulings on appointment of legal representative of 3rd Defendant — Injunction restraining changes to shareholding, company documents and legal representatives granted by High Court — Defendant contending injunction terms should be varied to reflect Mainland court findings — Whether new circumstances or good grounds exist to vary injunction — Applicant burden to show significant change or facts unavailable at injunction hearing — Court held injunction made after full hearing with no reservation for re-argument — Mainland rulings known prior to injunction — Formational changes pre-dating injunction no ground for variation — Status quo preservation pending arbitration and Mainland court determination necessary — Application dismissed with costs. This judgment clarifies the application of principles governing variation of interlocutory injunctions and the significance of prior knowledge of facts and consent under undertaking in interlocutory orders.
Legal issues: Whether the interlocutory injunction order can be varied on the grounds stated
Outcome: The Defendants' application to vary the interlocutory injunction order was dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases · Cites 2 cases