HCA654/2025 INFO SALONS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (HK) LTD v. FENG WENGUO AND OTHERS - LawHero
HCA654/2025
高等法院（民事訴訟）K Yeung J in Chambers10/4/2025[2025] HKCFI 1663
HCA654/2025
A A
HCA 654/2025
B
[2025] HKCFI 1663 B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
C C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
D COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE D
ACTION NO 654 OF 2025
E E
__________________
F BETWEEN F
G INFO SALONS TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff G
SERVICES (HK) LIMITED
H H
and
I I
FENG WENGUO (馮文國) 1st Defendant
J LI TUNG YAT (李東逸) 2nd Defendant J
EVENTLYTE LIMITED 3rd Defendant
K K
__________________
L L
M Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers in Chambers M
Date of Hearing: 11 April 2025
N N
Date of Decision: 11 April 2025
O O
P DECISION P
Q Q
1. This is the return date hearing on Summons Friday morning
R of the summons taken out on 31 March 2025 by the plaintiff (“P”) for an R
interlocutory injunction against the 2nd defendant (“D2”) to restrain him
S S
from breaching certain covenants (the “Employment Covenants”) in his
T employment agreement with P (the “Employment Agreement”). The T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
duration of the injunction being sought is until 7 June 2025. That is the
B B
date when the most relevant of those covenants are going to expire.
C C
2. Parties seek directions for the substantive hearing of the
D D
summons be adjourned to 25 April 2025 (the Summons Friday 2 weeks
E from now). E
F F
3. Summons Fridays are not normally suited for substantive
G hearings of contested applications. But on the special facts of this case, G
I, though with some reluctance, am prepared to accede to that request.
H H
I
4. P at this stage seeks an interim interim injunction for I
2 weeks in the same terms.
J J
5. I have read the affirmations in support and opposition. The
K K
main ones are the 3 from Wong Chau Wai and the 1 from D2. The
L following core facts are relevant. I add immediately at this stage that L
any observations I make below are necessarily preliminary in nature.
M M
N 6. P is a limited company. It is part of Info Salons Group. It N
carries on business of offering IT support for event and exhibition
O O
organizers, collecting and processing large volumes of attendee data, and
P then generating post-show reports to assist clients in gauging attendance P
trends and marketing effectiveness.
Q Q
R 7. A key component of P’s operations is said to be an internally R
developed Online Database Management System Web Based Application,
S S
which evolved from the lnfoweb Systems developed by Info Salons
T T
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
Group (the “Systems”). It is said that both systems have taken P
B B
significant resources and time to build.
C C
8. P says that it has a number of loyal clients. One of the
D D
major ones is Informa Markets Asia Ltd (“Informa Markets”). It has
E been a longstanding client for over 18 years. It has regularly engaged P E
for multiple and annually recurring shows and exhibitions. One such
F F
line of shows and exhibitions is the Jewellery Fairs held in Hong Kong
G in March, June and September every year (the “March Jewellery Fair”, G
“June Jewellery Fair” and “September Jewellery Fair”). Of the 3,
H H
the March one is relatively smaller, the June one bigger, and the
I September one biggest. I
J J
9. Between 2014 and 7 June 2024, D2 was under P’s employ.
K He held the position of Deputy General Manager. He was effectively K
the second-most senior figure in P’s organizational hierarchy.
L L
M
10. The last day of D2’s employment was 7 June 2024. He left M
upon his resignation, which he tendered in May 2024.
N N
11. The Employment Agreement between P and D2 contains a
O O
number of restrictive covenants, against disclosure of information, non-
P solicitation of business, non-enticing away of inter alia P’s employee and P
officer, and non-competing (“Non-disclosure Covenant”, “Non-
Q Q
solicitation Covenant”, “Non-enticement Covenant” and “Non-
R competing Covenant” respectively). The effective duration of the Non- R
S
solicitation, Non-enticing Away and Non-competing is 12 months from S
the end of his employment.
T T
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
12. I have considred the terms of those covenants.
B B
C 13. D3 is a Hong Kong limited company. It was incorporated C
on 1 August 2024. There is no dispute that it was set up by D2, and that
D D
it carries on a line of business similar to that of P.
E E
14. There is no dispute that D3 handled the March Jewellery
F F
Fair 2025 for Informa Markets. D2 also says that Informa Markets has
G chosen D3 as the service provider for the June Jewellery Fair 2025. G
This is disputed by P.
H H
I
15. Sharon Chong used to be employed by the Info Salons I
Group. She was seconded to P as an Assistant Project Manager. She
J J
tendered her resignation on 5 July 2024, and her last day of employment
K
with P was 6 September 2024. D2 has revealed that she has joined D3 K
since November 2024.
L L
16. On 6 March 2025, P through its solicitors issued a cease-
M M
and-desist letter to D2 and D3. Another letter was issued on
N 27 March 2025. There has been no reply. N
O O
17. I have considered China Shanshui Cement Group v Zhang
P Caikui [2018] HKCA 409. In considering whether to grant any interim P
interim relief, the court has to do practical justice on the balance of
Q Q
fairness. I have also reminded myself of the approach discussed in
R Music Advance Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Argyle Centre [2010] 2 R
HKLRD 1041 (applied in China Shanshui – see §18).
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
18. I note, given the soon expiry of the Non-solicitation, Non-
B B
enticement Away and Non-competing Covenants (7 June 2025), the
C results of this application might in effect dispose of the part of this action C
for injunctive relief finally. In this regard, I have considered BFAM
D D
Partners (Hong Kong) Ltd v Gareth John Mills [2021] HKCFI 2904 at
E §§20-22 and GFI (HK) Securities LLC v Gyong Hee Kang (HCA E
1319/2015, 23 June 2015) at §§25-28.
F F
G 19. For the following reasons, I refuse any interim interim relief G
at this stage:
H H
(a) In respect of the Non-disclosure Covenant, it does not appear
I I
to be the core of P’s complaint. P’s focus is those
J Employment Covenants which have an effective period of J
12 months. The Non-disclosure Covenant is not subject to
K K
that;
L L
(b) P’s case based on any breach of the Non-disclosure
Covenant is in any event vague and non-specific at this stage.
M M
The exact information involved has not been pin-pointed.
N Whether the Systems are up-to-date and remain useful is also N
a concern;
O O
(c) In respect of the Non-solicitation Covenant, the facts are not
P P
clear as to whether it was Informa Markets which sought out
D2’s help, or whether it was D2 who solicited its patronage.
Q Q
If the former, there may not have been any breach of the
R Non-solicitation Covenant; R
S (d) In respect of the Non-enticement Covenant, I have concern S
as to its applicability in relation Sharon Chong. She is not
T T
an employee of P, but was only employed by a company
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
within the Info Salons Group. There is also the concern as
B B
to whether it was she herself who requested to join D3, as
C opposed to she having been enticed away; C
D (e) In respect of the Non-competing Covenant: D
E
(i) D2 and D3 appear to have been competing with P in E
its field of business;
F F
(ii) The main argument raised at this stage on D2’s behalf
G is the apparent wide scope of that covenant; G
H (iii) But it appears to me that the covenant can be read H
down. There is also this paragraph in the
I I
Employment Agreement, that:
J If any provision of this clause is unenforceable, illegal J
or void it is severed and the other provisions remain in
force.
K K
(iv) P’s case however concerns mainly D2 and D3’s
L L
competition with it for the patronage of Informa
M
Markets; M
(v) Mr Ng submits at §51 of his written submissions that:
N N
without the injunction, P will suffer near-certain
O irreparable harm: (1) loss of the June Jewellery Faire; O
(2) likely loss of the September Jewellery Fair; and (3)
the permanent displacement from Informa Markets’
P suite of events, given the next cycle of events will be P
locked in with D3. If P stands to lose the trust of a
Q
major anchor client like Informa Markets, that could Q
wholly degrade P’s foothold in the events industry over
time.
R R
(vi) But:
S S
(1) The March Jewellery Fair 2025 has been
T completed; T
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
(2) The evidence at this stage suggests that D3 has
B B
in fact been chosen to handle the June Jewellery
C Fair 2025; C
D (3) On the evidence, point (3) made by Mr Ng in D
the above cited submission may with respect be
E an over-statement. Informa Markets are free E
to choose its service providers. The fact that it
F F
has at one stage chosen another service provider
G may not mean that it will not choose P again in G
any future fairs, or that its trust in P has been or
H H
will be lost;
I (4) In any event, any loss that P may suffer or may I
have suffered via the loss of patronage by
J J
Informa Markets insofar as the June and
K September Jewellery Fairs are concerned can be K
compensated by damages;
L L
(vii) The interim injunction being sought, if granted on
M 25 April 2025, will last less than 2 months. Even M
shorter for this interim interim injunction being sought.
N N
The evidence is not clear as to, besides the patronage
O of Informa Markets, what other loss P may suffer O
without the short injunction, or what other loss can
P P
been prevented by it;
Q (viii) On the other hand, there is force in Ms Chau’s Q
submission that if D2 is to be abruptly stopped by an
R R
interim interim injunction from continuing with his
S work on the June Jewellery Fair 2025, he will suffer S
an irreparable damage to his professional reputation.
T T
A third party, Informa Markets will be in limbo as to
U U
V V
- 8 -
A A
its organization of the June Jewellery Fair 2025. D2
B B
and D3 may also be liable to it for breach of
C agreement; C
D (ix) I note Mr Ng’s submissions that D2 has not on D
affirmation stated the prejudice he and D3 may suffer
E as a result of the imposition of the interim interim E
relief. On the basis, as has been affirmed to by D2,
F F
that D2 has been chosen as the service provider, the
G prejudice can be a matter of, in my view, common G
commercial sense;
H H
(x) During the submissions, Mr Ng put forward the
I possibility of a narrower interim interim injunction I
focusing on only the June Jewellery Fair 2025. It has
J J
to be appreciated in context that P’s case has in fact all
K along focused on, as submitted by Ms Chau, one K
company and one event. The proposed narrowing
L L
down of the interim interim relief in any event does
not cure most of the problems I have identified and
M M
discussed above. In particular, even such a narrower
N injunction would immediately prevent D2 and D3 N
from their preparation of the June Jewellery Fair 2025.
O O
P
20. On the facts before me, I am of the view that balance of P
fairness is against the grant of any interim interim relief.
Q Q
21. Having heard parties, I reserve costs, but with certificate for
R R
counsel.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 9 -
A A
22. I will hear parties further on the directions to be given.
B B
C C
D D
E (Keith Yeung) E
Judge of the Court of First Instance
F High Court F
G G
Mr Ernest Ng and Mr Calvin Ng instructed by Alvan Liu & Partners,
for the Plaintiff
H H
Ms Vivian Chau of Tony Au & Co, for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
INFO SALONS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (HK) LTD v. FENG WENGUO AND OTHERS
A A
HCA 654/2025
B
[2025] HKCFI 1663 B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
C C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
D COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE D
ACTION NO 654 OF 2025
E E
__________________
F BETWEEN F
G INFO SALONS TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff G
SERVICES (HK) LIMITED
H H
and
I I
FENG WENGUO (馮文國) 1st Defendant
J LI TUNG YAT (李東逸) 2nd Defendant J
EVENTLYTE LIMITED 3rd Defendant
K K
__________________
L L
M Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers in Chambers M
Date of Hearing: 11 April 2025
N N
Date of Decision: 11 April 2025
O O
P DECISION P
Q Q
1. This is the return date hearing on Summons Friday morning
R of the summons taken out on 31 March 2025 by the plaintiff (“P”) for an R
interlocutory injunction against the 2nd defendant (“D2”) to restrain him
S S
from breaching certain covenants (the “Employment Covenants”) in his
T employment agreement with P (the “Employment Agreement”). The T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
duration of the injunction being sought is until 7 June 2025. That is the
B B
date when the most relevant of those covenants are going to expire.
C C
2. Parties seek directions for the substantive hearing of the
D D
summons be adjourned to 25 April 2025 (the Summons Friday 2 weeks
E from now). E
F F
3. Summons Fridays are not normally suited for substantive
G hearings of contested applications. But on the special facts of this case, G
I, though with some reluctance, am prepared to accede to that request.
H H
I
4. P at this stage seeks an interim interim injunction for I
2 weeks in the same terms.
J J
5. I have read the affirmations in support and opposition. The
K K
main ones are the 3 from Wong Chau Wai and the 1 from D2. The
L following core facts are relevant. I add immediately at this stage that L
any observations I make below are necessarily preliminary in nature.
M M
N 6. P is a limited company. It is part of Info Salons Group. It N
carries on business of offering IT support for event and exhibition
O O
organizers, collecting and processing large volumes of attendee data, and
P then generating post-show reports to assist clients in gauging attendance P
trends and marketing effectiveness.
Q Q
R 7. A key component of P’s operations is said to be an internally R
developed Online Database Management System Web Based Application,
S S
which evolved from the lnfoweb Systems developed by Info Salons
T T
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
Group (the “Systems”). It is said that both systems have taken P
B B
significant resources and time to build.
C C
8. P says that it has a number of loyal clients. One of the
D D
major ones is Informa Markets Asia Ltd (“Informa Markets”). It has
E been a longstanding client for over 18 years. It has regularly engaged P E
for multiple and annually recurring shows and exhibitions. One such
F F
line of shows and exhibitions is the Jewellery Fairs held in Hong Kong
G in March, June and September every year (the “March Jewellery Fair”, G
“June Jewellery Fair” and “September Jewellery Fair”). Of the 3,
H H
the March one is relatively smaller, the June one bigger, and the
I September one biggest. I
J J
9. Between 2014 and 7 June 2024, D2 was under P’s employ.
K He held the position of Deputy General Manager. He was effectively K
the second-most senior figure in P’s organizational hierarchy.
L L
M
10. The last day of D2’s employment was 7 June 2024. He left M
upon his resignation, which he tendered in May 2024.
N N
11. The Employment Agreement between P and D2 contains a
O O
number of restrictive covenants, against disclosure of information, non-
P solicitation of business, non-enticing away of inter alia P’s employee and P
officer, and non-competing (“Non-disclosure Covenant”, “Non-
Q Q
solicitation Covenant”, “Non-enticement Covenant” and “Non-
R competing Covenant” respectively). The effective duration of the Non- R
S
solicitation, Non-enticing Away and Non-competing is 12 months from S
the end of his employment.
T T
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
12. I have considred the terms of those covenants.
B B
C 13. D3 is a Hong Kong limited company. It was incorporated C
on 1 August 2024. There is no dispute that it was set up by D2, and that
D D
it carries on a line of business similar to that of P.
E E
14. There is no dispute that D3 handled the March Jewellery
F F
Fair 2025 for Informa Markets. D2 also says that Informa Markets has
G chosen D3 as the service provider for the June Jewellery Fair 2025. G
This is disputed by P.
H H
I
15. Sharon Chong used to be employed by the Info Salons I
Group. She was seconded to P as an Assistant Project Manager. She
J J
tendered her resignation on 5 July 2024, and her last day of employment
K
with P was 6 September 2024. D2 has revealed that she has joined D3 K
since November 2024.
L L
16. On 6 March 2025, P through its solicitors issued a cease-
M M
and-desist letter to D2 and D3. Another letter was issued on
N 27 March 2025. There has been no reply. N
O O
17. I have considered China Shanshui Cement Group v Zhang
P Caikui [2018] HKCA 409. In considering whether to grant any interim P
interim relief, the court has to do practical justice on the balance of
Q Q
fairness. I have also reminded myself of the approach discussed in
R Music Advance Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Argyle Centre [2010] 2 R
HKLRD 1041 (applied in China Shanshui – see §18).
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
18. I note, given the soon expiry of the Non-solicitation, Non-
B B
enticement Away and Non-competing Covenants (7 June 2025), the
C results of this application might in effect dispose of the part of this action C
for injunctive relief finally. In this regard, I have considered BFAM
D D
Partners (Hong Kong) Ltd v Gareth John Mills [2021] HKCFI 2904 at
E §§20-22 and GFI (HK) Securities LLC v Gyong Hee Kang (HCA E
1319/2015, 23 June 2015) at §§25-28.
F F
G 19. For the following reasons, I refuse any interim interim relief G
at this stage:
H H
(a) In respect of the Non-disclosure Covenant, it does not appear
I I
to be the core of P’s complaint. P’s focus is those
J Employment Covenants which have an effective period of J
12 months. The Non-disclosure Covenant is not subject to
K K
that;
L L
(b) P’s case based on any breach of the Non-disclosure
Covenant is in any event vague and non-specific at this stage.
M M
The exact information involved has not been pin-pointed.
N Whether the Systems are up-to-date and remain useful is also N
a concern;
O O
(c) In respect of the Non-solicitation Covenant, the facts are not
P P
clear as to whether it was Informa Markets which sought out
D2’s help, or whether it was D2 who solicited its patronage.
Q Q
If the former, there may not have been any breach of the
R Non-solicitation Covenant; R
S (d) In respect of the Non-enticement Covenant, I have concern S
as to its applicability in relation Sharon Chong. She is not
T T
an employee of P, but was only employed by a company
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
within the Info Salons Group. There is also the concern as
B B
to whether it was she herself who requested to join D3, as
C opposed to she having been enticed away; C
D (e) In respect of the Non-competing Covenant: D
E
(i) D2 and D3 appear to have been competing with P in E
its field of business;
F F
(ii) The main argument raised at this stage on D2’s behalf
G is the apparent wide scope of that covenant; G
H (iii) But it appears to me that the covenant can be read H
down. There is also this paragraph in the
I I
Employment Agreement, that:
J If any provision of this clause is unenforceable, illegal J
or void it is severed and the other provisions remain in
force.
K K
(iv) P’s case however concerns mainly D2 and D3’s
L L
competition with it for the patronage of Informa
M
Markets; M
(v) Mr Ng submits at §51 of his written submissions that:
N N
without the injunction, P will suffer near-certain
O irreparable harm: (1) loss of the June Jewellery Faire; O
(2) likely loss of the September Jewellery Fair; and (3)
the permanent displacement from Informa Markets’
P suite of events, given the next cycle of events will be P
locked in with D3. If P stands to lose the trust of a
Q
major anchor client like Informa Markets, that could Q
wholly degrade P’s foothold in the events industry over
time.
R R
(vi) But:
S S
(1) The March Jewellery Fair 2025 has been
T completed; T
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
(2) The evidence at this stage suggests that D3 has
B B
in fact been chosen to handle the June Jewellery
C Fair 2025; C
D (3) On the evidence, point (3) made by Mr Ng in D
the above cited submission may with respect be
E an over-statement. Informa Markets are free E
to choose its service providers. The fact that it
F F
has at one stage chosen another service provider
G may not mean that it will not choose P again in G
any future fairs, or that its trust in P has been or
H H
will be lost;
I (4) In any event, any loss that P may suffer or may I
have suffered via the loss of patronage by
J J
Informa Markets insofar as the June and
K September Jewellery Fairs are concerned can be K
compensated by damages;
L L
(vii) The interim injunction being sought, if granted on
M 25 April 2025, will last less than 2 months. Even M
shorter for this interim interim injunction being sought.
N N
The evidence is not clear as to, besides the patronage
O of Informa Markets, what other loss P may suffer O
without the short injunction, or what other loss can
P P
been prevented by it;
Q (viii) On the other hand, there is force in Ms Chau’s Q
submission that if D2 is to be abruptly stopped by an
R R
interim interim injunction from continuing with his
S work on the June Jewellery Fair 2025, he will suffer S
an irreparable damage to his professional reputation.
T T
A third party, Informa Markets will be in limbo as to
U U
V V
- 8 -
A A
its organization of the June Jewellery Fair 2025. D2
B B
and D3 may also be liable to it for breach of
C agreement; C
D (ix) I note Mr Ng’s submissions that D2 has not on D
affirmation stated the prejudice he and D3 may suffer
E as a result of the imposition of the interim interim E
relief. On the basis, as has been affirmed to by D2,
F F
that D2 has been chosen as the service provider, the
G prejudice can be a matter of, in my view, common G
commercial sense;
H H
(x) During the submissions, Mr Ng put forward the
I possibility of a narrower interim interim injunction I
focusing on only the June Jewellery Fair 2025. It has
J J
to be appreciated in context that P’s case has in fact all
K along focused on, as submitted by Ms Chau, one K
company and one event. The proposed narrowing
L L
down of the interim interim relief in any event does
not cure most of the problems I have identified and
M M
discussed above. In particular, even such a narrower
N injunction would immediately prevent D2 and D3 N
from their preparation of the June Jewellery Fair 2025.
O O
P
20. On the facts before me, I am of the view that balance of P
fairness is against the grant of any interim interim relief.
Q Q
21. Having heard parties, I reserve costs, but with certificate for
R R
counsel.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 9 -
A A
22. I will hear parties further on the directions to be given.
B B
C C
D D
E (Keith Yeung) E
Judge of the Court of First Instance
F High Court F
G G
Mr Ernest Ng and Mr Calvin Ng instructed by Alvan Liu & Partners,
for the Plaintiff
H H
Ms Vivian Chau of Tony Au & Co, for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V