Kama v Wong (No 2)

Kama v Wong (No 2) concerned a dispute between the two parties over a series of applications for relief. The case was heard by the court which had previously declined to grant an interlocutory injunction to the applicant. The matter returned to the court as the applicant sought further relief. The core issue before the court was whether there had been any new circumstances since the previous refusal that warranted a reconsideration of the matter. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the applicant should be liable for the costs incurred by the respondent due to the repeated applications.

The court found that there were no new circumstances since the previous application that would justify a change in the decision. The applicant had not provided any evidence or arguments that were significantly different from those presented in the initial application. The court reiterated its previous reasoning and found that the applicant had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the second application for relief. Given the repeated nature of the applications without any substantive change in circumstances, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the respondent's need to defend against what the court deemed to be a vexatious application. This decision underscored the importance of demonstrating new evidence or significant changes in circumstances when seeking repeated relief in similar cases.