Read the full judgment text of CACV 000129/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 December 1993 before Penlington JA, Bokhary JA, Mortimer JA.
Civil law – interlocutory mandatory injunction – election dispute – Hong Kong Judo Association – validity of election of officers on 21 June 1993 – plaintiffs ruled ineligible to stand – defendants elected – plaintiffs challenged validity of election and actions of 2nd defendant as chairman at EGM – Whether the learned Deputy Judge was plainly wrong in granting an interlocutory mandatory injunction requiring defendants to convene a new EGM and hold fresh elections for the 12 positions pending trial – Court of Appeal's approach to interlocutory mandatory injunctions – Such orders should only be made in the most exceptional circumstances, where the court has no choice and justice between the parties makes the order absolutely necessary – Whether the balance of convenience and the status quo could have been preserved by simpler means – Defendants' undertaking not to admit or elect new members accepted as adequate interim protection – Directions for early trial – Whether further restraining orders against the defendants (restraining them from acting on behalf of the Association, holding themselves out as its representatives, dealing with its assets, and admitting or electing new members) should be granted on cross-appeal – No evidence of mismanagement – Whether further mandatory orders were appropriate in the absence of agreement from both sides to abandon the action and be bound by fresh elections – Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; no order made on cross-appeal; undertaking accepted; directions for early trial given (7 days for exchange of lists of documents, 7 days for inspection, case set down in running list with 3 days reserved, no order for exchange of witness statements).
Legal issues: Whether the judge was plainly wrong in granting an interlocutory mandatory injunction ordering a fresh EGM and election · Whether further restraining orders against the defendants should be made on the cross-appeal
Outcome: Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed (no order made on the cross-appeal, but undertaking accepted).