19/09/2019
HCMP2801/2015 THE UNIVERSITY
OF HONG KONG v. HONG
KONG
COMMERCIAL
BROADCASTING
CO LTD AND ANOTHER
28. In the same paragraph, however, Sedley LJ referred to the wide power to
hear
any
person
that
had
since
been
introduced
into judicial
review
proceedings (CPR rule 54.17 and the relevant Practice Direction) and said:
“... there is no reason why the High Court in the exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction should not be able to act likewise ...”
That however is a separate power arising from the inherent jurisdiction of
the court to be exercised only sparingly in special circumstances.
29.
It was also submitted by the intended interveners that they could take
part because they were affected by the injunction which specifically stated
(as is common in ex parte interim injunctions) that “anyone affected by any
of the restrictions in [the] Order” may apply to the court to vary or discharge
the order.
It is well established that even without that clause a person
affected by an injunction may apply to the court to have it discharged, but in
my view this alone neither requires nor entitles that person to be made a
party to the action as such: Bourbaud v Bourbaud (1864)
12 WR
Cretanor
Ltd
WLR
Maritime
966,
(CACV
978;
50/1994;
Co
Lo
Ltd
Yu
v Irish
Chu
29 September
v
Marine
Kam
1994).
Management
Fu
Lai
Further,
1024;
|1978]
Development
Co
for the reasons
1
Ltd
I have
explained above, the way the intended interveners say they are affected is
that, like the world at large, they are unable to receive the information
without the Unknown Person acting contrary to the court order.
It seems to
me that it is not intended by the principle or by the express clause in the
injunction that the intended interveners can for that reason claim a right to
apply to discharge the injunction as such.
30.
The
concerned,
question
of joinder,
is largely academic,
so far as the
interlocutory
injunction
is
since the intended interveners have filed
affirmations, have lodged skeleton arguments and their counsel have been
heard in full de bene esse.
The summons
of Apple Daily Limited is, in
particular, in terms limited to a joinder to discharge the interim injunction.
https: //legalref.judiciary.hk/Irs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp? DIS=101619&currpage=T
10/33