Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Distress for rent

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2025

HO YUEN KWONG及另一人對 LIU KA CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 13
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT2341/2024

The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused because the defendant offered no reasonable explanation for the 13‑day delay, the proposed appeal lacked any reasonable or real prospect of success, the plaintiffs had obtained the required CR109 endorsement and the court properly exercised discretion to suspend proceedings to allow remedial filing rather than frustrate recovery of rent; granting leave would have caused unjustified delay and potential satellite litigation.
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.
7 Jul 2022

THE ONE PROPERTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHINESE ESTATES (THE ONE) LIMITED) v. STAR WIN ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 662
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT541/2022

The court held that s93(1) could be relied upon pre-seizure, the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of the existing substantive dispute over clause 8 when obtaining ex parte warrants, and because a bona fide and serious dispute exists the warrants should not be allowed to be executed; accordingly the appropriate relief was to suspend the warrants and stay execution pending the outcomes of the related DCCJ and HCA actions, with costs to the defendant assessed summarily.
21 Sept 2010

AU WING LUN v. CHEUNG CHUN WAH t/a WELLDONE LAUNDRY & DRYCLEANING CO

Citation

AU WING LUN v. CHEUNG CHUN WAH t/a WELLDONE LAUNDRY & DRYCLEANING CO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV95/2010

The Court held that the plaintiff as an executor was entitled to distrain under ss106-107 of the Ordinance and established authority; the failure to name the co-executor was only an irregularity and did not vitiate the distress or require joinder because the rival-will dispute was not triable in a distress action; therefore the judge did not err in refusing to discharge the warrant or to allow joinder.
12 Nov 2008

WING SAU INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. TANG SHING FAI

Citation

WING SAU INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. TANG SHING FAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT4064/2008

The bailiff reasonably believed the tenant was in apparent possession of the seized goods; the claimant failed to verify ownership with particulars or attend despite notice and offered no arguable merits; therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion to return the goods and dismissed the claimant's claim and ordered him to pay the plaintiff's costs and specified security guard fees.
31 Jul 2006

JOIN FORTUNE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YAU TAI WAI, DAVID

Citation

JOIN FORTUNE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YAU TAI WAI, DAVID
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT3207/2006

The claimant failed to prove ownership of all seized goods or a sub-tenancy and the bailiff lawfully seized goods in the apparent possession of the tenant under s87; therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the claimant and dismissed the claim.
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.
24 Sept 2004

領城物業有限公司 v. 麥國強

Citation

領城物業有限公司 v. 麥國強
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2945/2003

The surrender agreement was ineffective because it was executed without authority, ratification was not pleaded and the plaintiff's conduct and limited silence did not constitute unequivocal ratification, and there was no consideration or estoppel sufficient to waive six months' rent; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the outstanding sum.
28 Feb 2003

LAI SUN DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. LINKFEEL LTD.

Citation

LAI SUN DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. LINKFEEL LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT584/2003

The chattels were in the apparent possession of the Defendant at the time of execution and no convincing documentary proof was produced to rebut that appearance; the Claimant had failed to pay licence fees for the critical months and knowingly occupied under a licence from the Defendant without informing the landlord, so the court declined to exercise its discretion to return the chattels to the Claimant in order to protect the landlord's rights and prevent arrangements designed to defeat distraint.