KELLAND CO LTD v. PACIFIC ACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

KELLAND CO LTD v. PACIFIC ACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

The court held that the Bailiff lawfully seized goods that were in the apparent possession of the Defendant and that the Plaintiff had a statutory right under section 99 to sell distrained goods; ownership alone did not require return of goods and no factors were shown sufficient to displace the landlord's statutory rights, therefore all claimants' claims for return were dismissed.

Citation
KELLAND CO LTD v. PACIFIC ACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD
Parties
2nd Claimant: TOPCON BEIJING (H.K.) LIMITED; 3rd Claimant: HOYA LENS HONG KONG LIMITED; 4th Claimant: PERFECT VISION (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 5th Claimant: OCULUS OPTICAL (H.K.) COMPANY LIMITED; 6th Claimant: ESSILOR HONG KONG LTD.; 7th Claimant: CATHAY OPTICAL ASIA LIMITED; 8th Claimant: WING LUNG BANK LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 2011
Case Number
DCDT4160/2010
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Distress for Rent / Judgment
Outcome
All claimants' claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Distress, Warrant of Distress, Seizure of Goods, Ownership Vs Possession, Statutory Sale Under S99, Consignment, Hire Purchase, Dishonoured Cheque
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Commercial Law Distress Warrant of Distress Seizure of Goods Ownership Vs Possession Statutory Sale Under S99 +3 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TOPCON BEIJING (H.K.) LIMITED

2nd Claimant

HOYA LENS HONG KONG LIMITED

3rd Claimant

PERFECT VISION (HONG KONG) LIMITED

4th Claimant

OCULUS OPTICAL (H.K.) COMPANY LIMITED

5th Claimant

ESSILOR HONG KONG LTD.

6th Claimant

CATHAY OPTICAL ASIA LIMITED

7th Claimant

WING LUNG BANK LIMITED

8th Claimant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Distress for Rent / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bailiff lawfully seized the goods under the warrant of distress
  2. 2 Whether ownership of goods defeated the statutory right of distraint and sale under the Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order return of goods to claimants despite statutory rights of landlord

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Bailiff lawfully seized goods that were in the apparent possession of the Defendant and that the Plaintiff had a statutory right under section 99 to sell distrained goods; ownership alone did not require return of goods and no factors were shown sufficient to displace the landlord's statutory rights, therefore all claimants' claims for return were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All claimants' claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Claims dismissed.
  • Order nisi for costs in favour of Plaintiff; costs to be made absolute within 14 days.