A night club has sued a Chinese owned shopping mall after suffering heavy losses. Radost Night Club has sued Anjin-owned shopping mall,...
A night club has sued a Chinese owned shopping mall
after suffering heavy losses.
Radost Night Club has sued Anjin-owned shopping mall,
Longchen International Trade and Commerce, seeking $150 000 as compensation for
loss of business.
The night club issued summons late last month, accusing the
owners of Longchen Plaza in Belvedere of sabotaging the club’s business leading
to heavy financial loss.
Radost Night Club, owned by a local engineer, said its
business and restaurant at Longchen Plaza encountered a huge loss after
officials brought in competitors at the complex, who occupied the same floor
“generally, engendering an environment hostile to the operation and
continuation of a profitable and sustainable business by plaintiff (Radost)”.
“As a consequence of the aforesaid wrongful acts, plaintiff
suffered damages calculated in the sum of $150 000, being diminished business
earnings and the subsequent loss of business and earnings after ceasing
operations,” the night club said.
“Despite demand, the defendant (Longchen International) has
failed, refused and/or neglected to compensate the plaintiff in the sum claimed
or at all for the loss suffered. Plaintiff has been unnecessarily put out of
pocket instituting this claim and, therefore, seeks an order for costs on the
attorney and client scale.”
According to Radost Night Club, sometime in May 2013, it
occupied shop 213 at Longchen. The club said with mall owner’s consent, it
carried out extensive renovations of the warehouse, which was not suited for
its business.
“Upon completion of the renovations, plaintiff then
commenced a night club and restaurant business on the said portion, with the
consent of the defendant, who gave plaintiff assurance that he would not allow
any competing business to be carried out within a reasonable radius from
plaintiff’s occupied portion,” the club said.
“Subsequently, in or about the year 2014, defendant took in
or allowed a competing business trading under the name and style 1+1 Happy, to
open adjacent to plaintiff’s business, thereby, significantly affecting and
eventually causing the demise of plaintiff’s business.”
Radost said the two competing businesses were housed in a
single hall separated only by a wall with the consequence that the sound system
from the said competitor overwhelmed and could be heard loudly in its business,
thereby, affecting its clientele.
Longchen is yet to respond to the lawsuit.
COMMENTS