Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ownership of goods

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2018

HKSAR v. 深圳市泰杰寶珠寶首飾有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1390
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA97/2018

The magistrate correctly found the Appellant to be the owner on the balance of probabilities and that the Appellant was negligent in entrusting the delivery to Mr Tse without adequate verification; that negligence facilitated the importation of unmanifested cargo and justified the exercise of discretion to order forfeiture; the High Court found no error of law or fact and dismissed the appeal.
11 Jun 2013

WELL JOINT TRADING LTD v. FULL SUCCESS STEEL CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WELL JOINT TRADING LTD v. FULL SUCCESS STEEL CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1597/2011

The appeal was allowed and the applicants were joined because their presence was necessary to determine ownership of the goods and the connected issue whether the 1st defendant acquired and passed good title to Hongshun; the evidence of payment, though documentary gaps existed, made the applicants' averments non‑frivolous; any delay did not cause prejudice and joinder avoids multiplicity and is the just and convenient course.
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.
16 Dec 2008

DOMBAS ESTATES LTD v. TOP JOINT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DOMBAS ESTATES LTD v. TOP JOINT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT3959/2008

The Claimant's ownership claim failed because the Agreement was shown to be between connected parties and potentially a sham or unregistered security aimed at defeating distraint; ownership alone did not warrant exercise of the court's discretion under s.96(2) to order return of goods, so the Claimant's interpleader claim was dismissed and its remedy is against the tenant for value.
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.
8 Aug 2005

AMLON METALS INC v. DENNY LIU AND OTHERS

Citation

AMLON METALS INC v. DENNY LIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2107/2004

The Master properly exercised his discretion in refusing security for costs because the plaintiff presented credible prima facie evidence of being defrauded and of the 2nd defendant's connection to the disputed shipment, so refusal of security was justified and the matter should proceed to trial.
18 Jul 2003

HIN FAI LTD t/a SUN FOOD SEAFOOD v. LONGRACE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HIN FAI LTD t/a SUN FOOD SEAFOOD v. LONGRACE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1788/2003

The court held that Hin Fai had established a strong prima facie case of ownership of the Goods found on the premises and was not barred by the clean hands doctrine in relation to recovery of the Goods; accordingly, upon Hin Fai paying into court $55,668 (the defendants' forced sale valuation of goods on site) Longrace and its directors must deliver up the Goods. The court refused Longrace's application for security for costs but ordered that proceedings against Chong in his personal capacity be stayed unless Hin Fai pays $100,000 into court as security for his costs.
8 Mar 2002

SILVERCORD LTD. v. WELL KINGDOM ENTERPRISE LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

SILVERCORD LTD. v. WELL KINGDOM ENTERPRISE LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT7912/2001

Claimants failed to prove ownership of the seized goods; the goods were in the apparent possession of the defendant and the distress was lawful under Section 87; therefore the claims of the identified claimants are dismissed, the bailiff may proceed to sell the goods, and plaintiff is awarded guarding fees and costs recoverable from the dismissed claimants jointly and severally.
8 Mar 2002

SILVERCORD LTD. v. WELL KINGDOM ENTERPRISE LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

SILVERCORD LTD. v. WELL KINGDOM ENTERPRISE LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT7913/2001

Claimants failed to prove ownership of seized goods: supplier sale‑or‑return arrangement was not credible and property had passed to defendant; C17's invoice did not outweigh evidence that the computer was used for defendant's business; shareholders' loan claims were contradicted by the company's auditor's report and lacked credibility. The bailiff's seizure was lawful under s87 and no s88 exception applied; therefore the interpleader claims were dismissed and bailiff given leave to sell.
23 Apr 1999

SINOSTAR CORPORATION LTD. v. COASTRAND SHIPPING LTD. AND ANOTEHR

Citation

SINOSTAR CORPORATION LTD. v. COASTRAND SHIPPING LTD. AND ANOTEHR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL252/1998

The Order 14 summary judgment application was dismissed because the affidavits and argument demonstrated multiple substantive triable issues (including ownership and alleged misdescription) that require trial; therefore summary relief was inappropriate, and defendants were awarded 90% of their costs of the application.