Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Television Broadcasts Ltd v Persons Unlawfully And Willfully Damaging Any Property Of The Plaintiff And Another

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date01 November 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCFI 2723
Year2019
Judgement NumberHCA1977/2019
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCA1977/2019 TELEVISION BROADCASTS LTD v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILLFULLY DAMAGING ANY PROPERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF AND ANOTHER

HCA 1977/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1977 of 2019

____________

BETWEEN
TELEVISION BROADCASTS LIMITED Plaintiff

and
PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILLFULLY
DAMAGING ANY PROPERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF 1st Defendants
PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILLFULLY
INJURING ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE PLAINTIFF 2nd Defendants

____________

Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers (open to public)
Date of Hearing: 1 November 2019
Date of Decision: 1 November 2019

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. To uphold and maintain the dignity of the Court, and the authority of the Orders it makes, members of the public who are persons likely to be affected by an Order must be notified and clearly informed of the precise terms of the Order: what it enjoins the affected party from doing or what the affected party is ordered to do, at the risk of being held liable for civil or criminal contempt of court.

2. The Court does not act in futile, so it will refrain from making an order which cannot be policed and enforced, either because it is uncertain in scope and terms, or if it is otherwise impossible to identify the party who is in breach of the order.

3. The Plaintiff in this action seeks a quia timet order: which literally means “Since he fears”. It therefore has the burden to prove that unless the Court intervenes, there is a real risk that the actionable wrong of which it complains will be committed. As the Court aptly pointed out, no one can obtain a quia timet Order by merely say “Timeo” (or I fear) (Attorney-General for the Dominion of Granada v Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co Ltd [1919] AC 999 at 1005).

4. On the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, there is nothing to show that any likely defendant has threatened, after the last acts complained of on 4 and 7 October 2019, to do any act that may result in damage either to the Plaintiff’s property or its employees. Even on the Plaintiff’s case, there has been no act of harassment, damage, obstruction or threats after 4 and 7 October 2019. There were isolated incidents, on 27 June and 14 July 2019, of the Plaintiff’s news crew having been obstructed, harassed and attacked when they were reporting the recent protests. In August, there were more unfortunate incidents of the Plaintiff’s employees being surrounded and harassed, and of the Plaintiff’s vehicle being damaged on 3, 4 and 5 August 2019. Instances of harassment of the Plaintiff’s news crew, and damage to the Plaintiff’s equipment and vehicle, continued to occur on 13 September, 22 September, 30 September, and 1, 4 and 7 October 2019. However, as the Plaintiff has acknowledged, there were no further instances of injury or damage after 7 October 2019. On...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT