PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The court held that clause 4 did not create a pledge: the part payment was not treated as a debt, the wording described a free rental and the contract omitted the usual terms (power of sale, timing and dealing with proceeds) that would indicate intention to create a pledge; therefore the 2nd defendant had no right...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Princess Yachts International PLC; 2nd Plaintiff: Long Asia (HK) Limited; 1st Defendant: Master Yachts Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Lam Ching Wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 December 2009
Case Number
HCA2277/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing (application to Continue Injunction)
Outcome
Amended inter partes injunction continued in favour of the plaintiffs; 2nd defendant's opposition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pledge, Interlocutory Injunction, Possession, Contract Interpretation, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Application
Source Language
en
Property Law Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Pledge Interlocutory Injunction Possession Contract Interpretation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Princess Yachts International PLC

1st Plaintiff

Long Asia (HK) Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Master Yachts Company Limited

1st Defendant

Lam Ching Wah

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing (application to Continue Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 4 of the Sales and Charter Agreement created a pledge giving the 2nd defendant a right to possession
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs committed material non-disclosure in the ex parte hearing
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours continuing the interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that clause 4 did not create a pledge: the part payment was not treated as a debt, the wording described a free rental and the contract omitted the usual terms (power of sale, timing and dealing with proceeds) that would indicate intention to create a pledge; therefore the 2nd defendant had no right to possession. The court also found no material non-disclosure in the ex parte application and concluded the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs, so the interlocutory injunction was continued with specified conditions.

Court Disposition

Amended inter partes injunction continued in favour of the plaintiffs; 2nd defendant's opposition dismissed.

Orders

  • Order in terms of the Amended Inter Partes summons
  • Plaintiffs to give 7-day notice to the 1st defendant before removing the V65 from Hong Kong