GOLDEN DYNASTY (HK) LTD v. TSUI HING WAI AND OTHERS

GOLDEN DYNASTY (HK) LTD v. TSUI HING WAI AND OTHERS

Plaintiff proved on balance that the 1st defendant received monies and dealt with the plaintiff's jewellery and that jewellery was being sold at the 2nd defendant's shop; therefore the 1st defendant is liable for the sums found, the 2nd defendant is liable for conversion (acts at its peril), and the 3rd defendant is liable under her guarantee; relief ordered was delivery up of retrieved jewellery and adjusted monetary judgment based on outstanding price less current market value with interest and costs.

Citation
GOLDEN DYNASTY (HK) LTD v. TSUI HING WAI AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Golden Dynasty (HK) Ltd.; 1st Defendant: TSUI Hing-wai; 2nd Defendant: Winson Trading & Development International Limited; 3rd Defendant: HAN Yan
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 September 2011
Case Number
DCCJ5269/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt and Conversion / Trial Judgment Delivered 2 September 2011
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Conversion, Delivery Up Order, Mareva Injunction, Anton Piller Order, Guarantee, Damages, Interest, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Contract Tort Equity Injunctions Civil Procedure Conversion Delivery Up Order +6 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Golden Dynasty (HK) Ltd.

Plaintiff

TSUI Hing-wai

1st Defendant

Winson Trading & Development International Limited

2nd Defendant

HAN Yan

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt and Conversion / Trial Judgment Delivered 2 September 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant converted the plaintiff's jewellery and received payments without accounting
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant is liable for conversion for jewellery sold in its shop despite claimed lack of knowledge
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd defendant is liable under a written guarantee for loss caused by the 1st defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff proved on balance that the 1st defendant received monies and dealt with the plaintiff's jewellery and that jewellery was being sold at the 2nd defendant's shop; therefore the 1st defendant is liable for the sums found, the 2nd defendant is liable for conversion (acts at its peril), and the 3rd defendant is liable under her guarantee; relief ordered was delivery up of retrieved jewellery and adjusted monetary judgment based on outstanding price less current market value with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Delivery to the plaintiff of the items seized pursuant to the Anton Piller Order dated 28 November 2007 (as listed in the Appendix)
  • 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the sum of $60,883 (361,774 - 300,891)