Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Apparent possession

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2023

LAPRAIRIE LTD v. GOLDEN DELIVERY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1428
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT1655/2023

All seized goods were in the apparent possession of the tenant and therefore lawfully distrained; the claimants' labels, invoices and loan agreements did not provide reasonable grounds at the time of seizure to displace apparent possession; on weighing ownership against the landlord's rights and the attendant circumstances (close relationships between claimants and tenant, lengthy arrears, rent paid and accounts controlled by claimants previously), the court declined to exercise its discretion to release or suspend the warrants.
10 Oct 2023

LAPRAIRIE LTD v. GOLDEN DELIVERY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1428
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT407/2023

The seized goods were in the apparent possession of the tenant because they were consistent with the operation of the restaurant and the overt circumstances supported seizure; the claimants failed to provide sufficient grounds on the spot to displace apparent possession or to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to return the goods; therefore the summons for release is dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
24 Sept 2012

AMPSLEY CO LTD v. SHUEN ON FURNITURE LTD

Citation

AMPSLEY CO LTD v. SHUEN ON FURNITURE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT2354/2012

On the material before the court the disputed items reasonably appeared to be in the tenant's apparent possession as at execution of the Warrant under s87; the claimant's asserted title was not resolved on the papers but must be substantiated by an affirmed statement and supporting documents under s96; accordingly the court adjourned the sale and directed exchange of affirmed evidence with costs reserved.
31 May 2012

CHUNG HO CO LTD v. NET POWER HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

CHUNG HO CO LTD v. NET POWER HOLDINGS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT1283/2012

The bailiff was entitled to seize the goods because they were in the apparent possession of the tenant; the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving rightful ownership and even if ownership existed it would not automatically require return of the goods under the court's discretion; weighing all circumstances the court exercised its discretion in favour of the landlord and dismissed the claimant's claim.
17 May 2010

BEST GRADE LTD v. YES WORLD LTD

Citation

BEST GRADE LTD v. YES WORLD LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT1449/2010

The goods were in the defendant's apparent possession; the 2nd claimant failed to prove an exclusive proprietary interest or satisfactorily explain the lease-and-buyback arrangement; accordingly the court ordered the goods to the plaintiff and dismissed the 2nd claimant's inter partes summons.
22 Jul 2009

COPTHORNE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. WEALTH FAIR TECHNOLOGIES LTD

Citation

COPTHORNE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. WEALTH FAIR TECHNOLOGIES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT3144/2009

Given the Claimant's clear, documented and timely claim to possession as registered chargee, the landlord's deliberate blockade preventing repossession, and the bailiff's knowledge of the Claimant's substantiated claim, it was unreasonable and unlawful for the bailiff to have seized the machineries on 24 June 2009; the machineries must be returned to the Claimant and costs awarded against the Landlord.
21 Apr 2009

ENTERTAINMENT CITY LTD v. EVER SHARP ASIA LTD

Citation

ENTERTAINMENT CITY LTD v. EVER SHARP ASIA LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT5323/2008

Goods were in the apparent possession of the tenant; the Claimant failed to establish consignment or any circumstance warranting exercise of the court's discretion to return the goods, and the close identity between Claimant and Defendant meant the Claimant was not a genuine stranger—therefore the Claimant's claim to release the goods was dismissed.
15 Dec 2008

SHUN HO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. SMART DRAGON LTD

Citation

SHUN HO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. SMART DRAGON LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT4440/2008

On the facts the claimed goods were in the apparent possession of the defendant when the third warrant was executed; the claimant failed to prove ownership or to rebut apparent possession or to show fraud by the plaintiff; seizure was lawful and the court declines to exercise its discretion to return the goods; claimant's interpleader claim is dismissed and costs awarded to plaintiff.
5 Jan 2006

FORT CROWN INVESTMENTS LTD v. TAM VIRGINIA V. t/a STAR LIGHT INTERNATIONAL AGENCY & TRADING SERVICES

Citation

FORT CROWN INVESTMENTS LTD v. TAM VIRGINIA V. t/a STAR LIGHT INTERNATIONAL AGENCY & TRADING SERVICES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV174/2005

The Court held the judge was entitled to treat the claimant's declarations and oral evidence as equivalent to an affidavit under the Rules and Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, and because the claimant proved ownership the goods were in his apparent possession notwithstanding the intermediate landlord’s presence; accordingly the distraint did not defeat the claimant's claim and the appeals were dismissed.
5 Jan 2006

FORT CROWN INVESTMENTS LTD v. TAM VIRGINIA V. t/a STAR LIGHT INTERNATIONAL AGENCY & TRADING SERVICES

Citation

FORT CROWN INVESTMENTS LTD v. TAM VIRGINIA V. t/a STAR LIGHT INTERNATIONAL AGENCY & TRADING SERVICES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2005

Declarations, coupled with oral evidence treated as affirmation, were sufficient for purposes of the application; claimant established ownership and therefore had apparent possession, so the distraint could not prevail against the claimant; appeals dismissed.