Good Choice Industrial Ltd v. A.S. Watson Group (HK) Ltd
|
HCA 1861/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 1861 OF 2013 ___________________
_______________ DECISION _______________ 1.The Plaintiff (Good Choice) in these proceedings was the Defendant in HCMP 1187/2013. 2.In that case the Plaintiffs being the incorporated owners of the building (the incorporated owners) in which the suit premises are comprised obtained judgment against Good Choice following an Award in Arbitration proceedings. 3.That judgment related to several breaches of the Deed of Mutual Covenant which regulated the said building. 4.The incorporated owners obtained an injunction which required Good Choice to make good breaches of the terms and conditions of the Deed of Mutual Covenant. 5.The main breaches complained of were the improper installation of air conditioners and the installation of a signboard. 6.Good Choice entered into a Tenancy Agreement with the Defendant in these proceedings. 7.The terms and conditions of the Tenancy were reduced to writing and contained in a letter dated 4 February, 2010 :
8.Good Choice requested the Defendant to permit them to enter the suit premises and make good the breaches of the terms of the Deed of Mutual Covenant. 9.The Defendant refused to comply with this request. In passing it is perhaps not altogether surprising that they should adopt this stance. They are operating a supermarket at the suit premises trading under the name or style of “ParknShop”. 10.If they were to comply with the request being made by Good Choice they would in all probability be unable to continue to operate their business at the suit premises. 11.It is their contention that there is nothing in the Tenancy Agreement preventing them from installing the air conditioning or installing the signboard. 12.Indeed when the installation of the air conditioners was undertaken, Good Choice, specifically instructed them upon where they should be installed which was at the location which is now complained of. 13.It is trite law that an injunction can only be granted if the Plaintiff is able to demonstrate that there is a triable issue. 14.Here the documents which have to be considered are the Tenancy Agreement, the terms of which are contained in the letter earlier cited, which was countersigned by the parties and the Statement of Claim. 15.Unfortunately when the Tenancy was entered into, Good Choice omitted to get the permission of the incorporated owners of the building for the installation of the air conditioners or for the prominent display of the ParknShop signboard. 16.It is manifest that if the issue of the air conditioners and the display of the signboard had been addressed at the time when the Tenancy was entered into, either the consent of the incorporated owner would have been applied for and obtained or more likely the Defendant would not have further pursued the negotiations. 17.The consequence of this is that it is not possible to impute or infer a term in the Tenancy that the Defendant has to comply with the Arbitration Award which the incorporated owners obtained. 18.Put very simply, Good Choice has failed to demonstrate that the Defendant has in any way been in breach of the terms of the Tenancy and accordingly no arguable case can be made out against them. 19.The injunction which has been issued must be discharged and I so order. I further order that costs will be to the Defendant with a certificate for two counsels. The costs will also be payable forthwith.
Mr. Gary Lam, instructed by Terry Yeung & Lai, for the Plaintiff Mr. Leo Remedios & Mr. Walk Sham, instructed by Tony Kan & Co., for the Defendant | ||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1861/2013