Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Retention of seized property

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2014

HKSAR v. Y & FUNG GARMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. Y & FUNG GARMENT COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA439/2013

The magistrate's exercise of discretion to award preservation and related costs up to the forfeiture application date was largely correct because C&E reasonably retained goods pending appeals and to liaise with IP owners; however the magistrate failed to consider that by the time C&E applied to resume the forfeiture hearing they should have determined the scope and returned goods plainly not liable to forfeiture, warranting a limited deduction of HK$15,800 from the costs awarded.
25 Mar 1976

LAI HING v. J. CATER AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAI HING v. J. CATER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP512/1976

Section 17(1) does not authorize indefinite retention to freeze assets and thereby circumvent the court procedure in s.14C; retention under s.17(1) is justified only while reasonably necessary to obtain evidence from the item or where the original document is essential proof and no alternative exists; here the receipts on their face contained no evidence and the primary purpose of retention was to prevent plaintiff using funds, so the receipts must be returned and the Commissioner should have applied for a restraining order if required.