COPTHORNE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. WEALTH FAIR TECHNOLOGIES LTD

COPTHORNE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. WEALTH FAIR TECHNOLOGIES LTD

Given the Claimant's clear, documented and timely claim to possession as registered chargee, the landlord's deliberate blockade preventing repossession, and the bailiff's knowledge of the Claimant's substantiated claim, it was unreasonable and unlawful for the bailiff to have seized the machineries on 24 June 2009; the machineries must be returned to the Claimant and costs awarded against the Landlord.

Citation
COPTHORNE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. WEALTH FAIR TECHNOLOGIES LTD
Parties
Plaintiff / Landlord: Copthorne Holdings Corporation; Defendant / Tenant: Wealth Fair Technologies Limited; Claimant / Chargee: Hang Seng Bank Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 July 2009
Case Number
DCDT3144/2009
Procedural Posture
Distraint / Reasons for Decision (deputy Judge in Chambers)
Outcome
Execution of the Warrant of Distraint on 24 June 2009 declared unreasonable and unlawful; machineries returned to Hang Seng Bank Limited; costs awarded against Copthorne Holdings Corporation with certificate for counsel.
Legal Topics
Warrant of Distraint, Apparent Possession, Charge Over Machinery, Repossession, Priority of Charges, Bailiff's Duties
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Enforcement Security Interests Property Warrant of Distraint Apparent Possession Charge Over Machinery Repossession +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Copthorne Holdings Corporation

Plaintiff / Landlord

Wealth Fair Technologies Limited

Defendant / Tenant

Hang Seng Bank Limited

Claimant / Chargee

Procedural Posture

Distraint / Reasons for Decision (deputy Judge in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bailiff should have seized the machineries on 24 June 2009
  2. 2 Whether the machineries were in the apparent possession of the tenant at the time of seizure
  3. 3 How the court should exercise its discretion as between landlord and registered chargee

Ratio Decidendi

Given the Claimant's clear, documented and timely claim to possession as registered chargee, the landlord's deliberate blockade preventing repossession, and the bailiff's knowledge of the Claimant's substantiated claim, it was unreasonable and unlawful for the bailiff to have seized the machineries on 24 June 2009; the machineries must be returned to the Claimant and costs awarded against the Landlord.

Court Disposition

Execution of the Warrant of Distraint on 24 June 2009 declared unreasonable and unlawful; machineries returned to Hang Seng Bank Limited; costs awarded against Copthorne Holdings Corporation with certificate for counsel.

Orders

  • Seizure declared unreasonable and unlawful
  • All machineries claimed by Hang Seng Bank Limited to be returned to Hang Seng Bank Limited