Aon Services Hong Kong Ltd and Another v. Helen Wai Ling Tang

HCA 525/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 525 OF 2013

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.This is the return date of an ex parte injunction. Injunction was previously granted to restrain the defendant from soliciting the plaintiffs’ employees to join the plaintiffs’ competitors. The parties have agreed on the terms of the undertaking to be provided, and as a result it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to proceed with the interlocutory injunction.

2.The only matter now before the court is the issue of costs.  The plaintiffs are happy with the costs in the cause order, but the defendant asks for the costs of the injunction to be paid by the plaintiffs. Ms Boreham, counsel for the defendant, confirms that the defendant is not intending to make an application to discharge the ex parte order.

3.In her submission, Ms Boreham has launched a number of attacks on the propriety of the ex parte order. However, without an opportunity to examine whether these factual allegations are correct and whether the ex parte order should have been granted or not, I cannot accept these submissions on face value.  There must be a proper hearing to determine where the factual allegations made by the defendant are correct, and as a result the court should not at this stage make any determination on these matters.

4.Since the propriety of the ex parte order is not a subject of dispute between parties at this stage, I am not prepared to make an order to award the costs of the application to the defendant.  The matter should be properly investigated at the trial, and whoever succeeds in this action should also get the costs of the application for the interlocutory injunction.

5.I therefore make the order that the costs of the ex parte application on 28 March 2013 and the costs of the plaintiffs’ summons dated 2 April 2013 be costs in the cause.