Mak Lau Siu Kan v. Lai Man Yau and Another

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 47 OF 1971

(On appeal from C.J. Action No. 2038/71)

________________________

________________________

Coram: Blair-Kerr, Ag. C.J., Huggins & Leonard, JJ.

Date: 4 July 1972

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Huggins, J.:

1.  I agree.  The Respondent established a strong probability that she would succeed in the action.  That was not enough to entitle her to interim injunctions and the first issue which had to be decided by the judge in chambers was what was the status quo.  On any reasonable view of the facts the Respondent had a right of access to the house and the Appellants excluded her.  She required access for legitimate purposes, but the Appellants sought to impose conditions upon her entry.  That could not be justified.  The learned judge assumed that if there was a trespass in this case it was sufficient to establish irreparable injury and I would agree.  The learned judge considered the balance of convenience and came to the conclusion that the Respondent ought to be protected.  I would not be prepared to interfere with the exercise of his discretion.  He thought the conduct of the 1st Appellant had demonstrated that either he or the Respondent would have to be excluded entirely from the premises and decided to exclude the 1st Appellant.  I cannot say he was wrong in that.  However, I see no necessity for an injunction in the terms of para.(3) of the Order of 12th November 1971 and would therefore agree that the appeal should be allowed to the limited extent proposed by Leonard, J.  I also concur in the order he proposes as to the costs.