Read the full judgment text of CACV 000185/1995 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 16 January 1996 before Nazareth V-P, Bokhary JA, Liu JA.
Civil practice – interlocutory injunction – ex parte application – material non-disclosure and misstatement – duty of full and frank disclosure – disputed commission for property development in Tung Hui and Zhongshan – intimidation by agents demanding payment – ex parte injunction granted by Keith J and continued in modified form by Findlay J – whether misstatement that $20m was paid after September 1994 visit was material – held material but plaintiffs undertook not to seek costs – ex parte injunction discharged but fresh injunction granted in modified form – defendants' challenge to wide non-communication term – held too wide and modified to permit communication by post, fax, telephone or other means at a distance – ex parte application not justified in case of alleged trespass and intimidation – new point not permitted on appeal – appeal dismissed with costs. Key authorities: Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcome [1988] 1 WLR 1350 on materiality of non-disclosure; Citibank NA v Express Ship Management Services Ltd [1987] 1 HKLR 1184; Behbehani v Salem [1989] 1 WLR 723 on court's discretion regarding discharge of ex parte injunctions.
Legal issues: Material non-disclosure and misstatement in ex parte injunction application · Whether the wide non-communication term in the injunction should be discharged · Whether the ex parte application was justified · Whether the injunction should be discharged or continued in modified form
Outcome: Appeal dismissed. The order of Findlay J continuing the modified injunction is upheld.