DCCJ 5053/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO 5053 OF 2013
-------------------------------------
BETWEEN
| ||
| CHAN WING MING WINNIE | Plaintiff | |
| and | ||
| TSE WAH YUEN JOSEPH | 1st Defendant | |
| CHAN CHUNG | 2nd Defendant | |
| SUTHERLAND MARK RICHARD CARLTON | 3rd Defendant | |
| WONG CHING YU EDWARD | 4th Defendant | |
| HO CHING WAI DORIS | 5th Defendant | |
| CHOW Y W KENNY | 6th Defendant | |
| TIN SANKIE TRACY | 7th Defendant | |
-------------------------------------
| Before: His Honour Judge Alex Lee in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: 2 January 2014 |
| Date of Ruling: 15 January 2014 |
--------------------------------------
REASONS FOR RULING
--------------------------------------
.....21. Having considered the available evidence before me and the submissions of the plaintiff, I come to the view that the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the granting of the interlocutory injunctions sought. My reasons are as follows:-
(a) Now that the plaintiff has found a new set of chambers, she can continue her practice from the new address. I can see no necessity for her to remain in the office premises in order to practice; and
(b) That the plaintiff [Barrister Winnie Chan - 大律師陳詠鳴] is now in bad terms with all the other members of the Chambers can be gleaned from the fact that the latter voted unanimously to evict her. Besides, the enthusiasm of the plaintiff to take part in running the Chambers has admittedly faded, even before her taking out of the present action. In the circumstances, even if her continued presence in the Chambers may be, as the plaintiff contends, “non-intrusive”, it would not, in my view, be conducive to the proper running and healthy development of the Chambers and a harmonious work atmosphere there.
Orders
(See: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=91037&currpage=T)
被逐出辦公室 女大狀陳詠鳴申禁令失敗
(2014年1月16日明報專訊)
資深大律師謝華淵 (Barrister Joseph Tse SC) 與7名大狀 (Counsel) 合租大律師辦公室 (Barristers' Chambers)，但疑與合租人之一的女大狀陳詠鳴 (Barrister Winnie Chan) 不咬弦，各人開會後按照事務所規則 (Chambers Rules)，一致決定「逐客」(Evict Her) 。陳早前入稟區院，要求宣布開除令無效，並申請臨時禁制令禁止執行開除令，昨遭法庭拒絕。
8大狀合租 謝華淵有份
謝華淵昨透過電話回應時沒有詳述紛爭，但指事件關乎各人「夾唔夾」。他指辦公室各同事一直遵守事務所規則，若各人以書面一致同意，可要求某成員離開，又指陳「喺度咁多年，話無同意過守則」。他稱陳於今年1月2日申請臨時禁制令失敗後，已搬離辦公室，房間稍後將有「新主人」。
原訴方陳詠鳴 (Counsel Winnie Chan) 與被告之一謝華淵 (Senior Counsel Joseph Tse) 等共8人，約於4年前合租中環中航集團大廈的單位作辦公室，2011年遷至金鐘遠東金融中心47樓。但陳與本案7名被告關係逐漸惡化，7名被告於去年7月2日一致通過，要求陳詠鳴於本年1月2日離開。
但陳指從未接受有關規則，要求法庭宣布開除令無效。她又申請臨時禁制令，禁止代表各人租用辦公室的公司執行開除令，及向陳發出雜費收據；又要求謝向大律師公會 (Bar Association) 表示不反對陳以上址為註冊地址。
不過，區院昨指出，陳於去年12月27日已向公會報上新的註冊地址，陳若認為新址不適合工作，大可再覓地方。相反，陳與眾被告關係破裂，「共處一室」亦難以和諧共事。區院認為臨時禁制令不會大大影響陳的利益，遂拒絕陳的申請。
【案件編號：DCCJ5053/13】
(See: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140116/-2-3166907/1.html)
沒有留言:
張貼留言