Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 5053/2013 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 15 January 2014 before His Honour Judge Alex Lee.
Civil law – interlocutory injunction – serious question to be tried – adequacy of damages – balance of convenience – chambers – barrister – notice to quit – licence in equity – Inwards v Baker – Chambers Rules – shareholder of service company – mandatory injunction – exclusion of chamber member – plaintiff and first five defendants were equal shareholders and directors of On Lucky, a service company incorporated in October 2010 to take up a three-year lease of office premises at Far East Finance Centre, 16 Harcourt Road, Hong Kong, and to employ the supporting staff – plaintiff was a barrister in private practice and the other defendants were her chamber mates – relationship between plaintiff and the other members of the Chambers deteriorated after they moved to the office premises – on 2 July 2013, plaintiff was given a notice to quit by the unanimous decision of all seven of her chamber mates, requiring her to vacate by 2 January 2014 – notice to quit was issued in the personal names of the defendants and signed by D1 – On Lucky exercised its option to renew the lease on 11 July 2013, with a new three-year lease commencing 3 January 2014 without any further option to renew – plaintiff contended that the notice to quit was defective because it was issued in the personal names of the defendants rather than in the name of On Lucky – plaintiff further contended that she had an irrevocable licence in equity under Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29 arising from her contribution to the setting up of the Chambers, and that she was not bound by the Chambers Rules circulated in May 2011 which provided for expulsion by unanimous consent of all other members in writing – plaintiff did not apply for any injunctions until 20 December 2013, just days before the notice was to expire – duty judge ordered her to commence proceedings by writ, serve papers, and adjourn the application to be heard on notice – plaintiff sought injunctions to prevent enforcement of the notice to quit, to prevent withdrawal of secretarial and administrative support, a mandatory injunction requiring D1 to inform the Bar Association that he would not object to her continued practice from the chambers address, and an order directing On Lucky to issue invoices for her monthly rent and chambers expenses – court held that there was a serious question to be tried – court expressed doubt whether plaintiff could establish she was not bound by the Chambers Rules after working in the Chambers for over two years without any express acceptance of them – court found the argument about the validity of the notice to quit was a technical one that called for detailed argument and mature consideration – court found it a difficult question of law whether the principles in Inwards v Baker extended beyond the right to stay to include entitlement to secretarial and administrative support services – court noted that even if plaintiff had an irrevocable licence, it could not extend indefinitely given that the renewed lease had no option for renewal – court found that any time and expenses the plaintiff would need to spend finding new chambers could be adequately compensated in financial terms – court found the relationship between the parties had irretrievably broken down and that the plaintiff's continued presence would not be conducive to the proper running of the Chambers – balance of convenience did not favour granting the interlocutory injunctions – application for interlocutory injunctions dismissed – no order as to costs.
Legal issues: Whether there is a serious question to be tried · Whether damages are an adequate remedy · Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunctions
Outcome: Plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunctions dismissed.