SILVER NICETY CO LTD v. FORRETON MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

SILVER NICETY CO LTD v. FORRETON MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

The court dismissed the summonses and refused to return the goods because the claimants failed to prove ownership, produced discrepant and insufficient evidence, could not show express or implied consent from the landlord, and because the Transfer Agreement executed immediately before rent default was suspicious given the close corporate relationship with the tenant; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion in the claimants' favour.

Citation
SILVER NICETY CO LTD v. FORRETON MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (landlord): Silver Nicety Company Limited; Defendant (tenant): Forreton Management Limited; 1st Claimant: FT Management Services Limited; 2nd Claimant: CGI Management Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 2013
Case Number
DCDT963/2013
Procedural Posture
Distraint/distress / Decision on Interlocutory Summonses Concerning Return of Seized Goods
Outcome
The three claimants' summonses dismissed; warrants of distress remain in force; two Chief Bailiff summonses dismissed as overtaken by events.
Legal Topics
Warrant of Distress, Ownership of Seized Goods, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Civil Procedure Warrant of Distress Ownership of Seized Goods Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications Exercise of Judicial Discretion Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Silver Nicety Company Limited

Plaintiff (landlord)

Forreton Management Limited

Defendant (tenant)

FT Management Services Limited

1st Claimant

CGI Management Limited

2nd Claimant

Procedural Posture

Distraint/distress / Decision on Interlocutory Summonses Concerning Return of Seized Goods

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warrants of distress were irregularly obtained
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the landlord in ex parte applications
  3. 3 Whether the claimants had consent (express or implied) to occupy or place goods at the premises

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the summonses and refused to return the goods because the claimants failed to prove ownership, produced discrepant and insufficient evidence, could not show express or implied consent from the landlord, and because the Transfer Agreement executed immediately before rent default was suspicious given the close corporate relationship with the tenant; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion in the claimants' favour.

Court Disposition

The three claimants' summonses dismissed; warrants of distress remain in force; two Chief Bailiff summonses dismissed as overtaken by events.

Orders

  • The three summonses by the claimants are dismissed
  • The Chief Bailiff's summonses under s.95 are dismissed as overtaken by events