SILVER NICETY CO LTD v. FORRETON MANAGEMENT LTD

SILVER NICETY CO LTD v. FORRETON MANAGEMENT LTD

The summonses were dismissed because the claimants failed to prove ownership of the seized goods, there was no evidence of express or implied consent by the landlord to their occupation, the Transfer Agreement executed immediately before default was suspicious and given little weight, there were discrepancies in supporting documents, and in view of the close relationship with the tenant the court would not exercise its discretion to return the goods; the warrants were not irregular.

Citation
SILVER NICETY CO LTD v. FORRETON MANAGEMENT LTD
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
DCDT964/2013
Procedural Posture
Distrain/distress (warrants of Distress for Rent Arrears) / Decision on Summonses Seeking Discharge of Warrants and Return of Seized Goods
Outcome
All three summonses dismissed; Chief Bailiff's summonses dismissed as overtaken by events; costs ordered against the claimants (order nisi).
Legal Topics
Warrant of Distress, Ownership of Seized Goods, Material Non Disclosure, Consent to Occupation, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Costs
Source Language
EN
Landlord and Tenant Property Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Warrant of Distress Ownership of Seized Goods Material Non Disclosure Consent to Occupation +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 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

Distrain/distress (warrants of Distress for Rent Arrears) / Decision on Summonses Seeking Discharge of Warrants and Return of Seized Goods

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warrants were irregular (including inclusion of government rates)
  2. 2 Whether material non-disclosure occurred in ex parte applications
  3. 3 Whether claimants proved legal and beneficial ownership of seized goods

Ratio Decidendi

The summonses were dismissed because the claimants failed to prove ownership of the seized goods, there was no evidence of express or implied consent by the landlord to their occupation, the Transfer Agreement executed immediately before default was suspicious and given little weight, there were discrepancies in supporting documents, and in view of the close relationship with the tenant the court would not exercise its discretion to return the goods; the warrants were not irregular.

Court Disposition

All three summonses dismissed; Chief Bailiff's summonses dismissed as overtaken by events; costs ordered against the claimants (order nisi).

Orders

  • Dismissal of the three claimants' summonses seeking discharge of warrants and return of goods
  • Chief Bailiff's summonses dismissed as overtaken by events