31 May 2024
Although attornment need not be preceded by an adverse claim initiated by the title paramount, the respondent failed to prove she attorned to KWC or that KWC was title paramount; consequently tenancy by estoppel binds the respondent and applicant is entitled to vacant possession, arrears and mesne profits.
16 Oct 2018
The tribunal found that although the 2016 lease was invalid for lack of signatures by the registered managers under the New Territories Ordinance, the landlord-tenant relationship between applicant and respondent persisted and tenancy by estoppel was not destroyed because there was no actual eviction or legal dispossession by the registered owner or his tenant. The respondent was therefore liable to pay rent arrears from 1 February 2018 to 30 April 2018 at HK$70,000 per month. The application for an order for possession was refused.
24 May 2016
Delivery of the diamonds to the carrier, consigned to the pledgee's agent, amounted to constructive delivery perfecting the pledge and giving the pledgee an immediate right to possession; therefore the pledgee had locus to sue for conversion and the carrier's lack of knowledge of the pledge was immaterial; leave to appeal was refused and the Court of Appeal's costs order was upheld as a discretionary, fact‑specific decision.
24 May 2016
The pledge was perfected by constructive delivery when the diamonds were consigned to the pledgee's agent (BEA) via the carrier, giving the pledgee an immediate right to possession and locus standi to sue for conversion; the carrier's knowledge or ignorance of the pledge was irrelevant; attornment was not required; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the Court of Appeal's substantive and costs orders were upheld.
15 Apr 2016
Summary judgment was inappropriate because the plaintiff had not pleaded bailment or attornment (so the court could not assume all relevant evidence was before it), there were arguable factual issues on attornment and on whether the defendant validly exercised a lien and was entitled to charge for preservation, and the defendant therefore was rightly granted unconditional leave to defend; the appeal was dismissed with costs.
14 Aug 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal did not qualify as of right (plaintiff sought unliquidated damages not proprietary relief) and the novel questions relied upon were not argued below; no exceptional reason to grant leave under the alternative limb. The trial sanctioned offer engaged Order 22 for the trial stage: the 3rd Defendant must pay trial costs on indemnity basis from 6 August 2011 and enhanced interest on damages is appropriate. Appeal costs remain party and party. Court varied its prior orders accordingly.
8 Feb 2011
The Bill was properly characterised as a bill of lading but the shipper Daesan validly waived the presentation requirement by unambiguous written instructions to C&C dated 29 November 2008; C&C, as agent/bailee, was obliged to follow those instructions and its refusal to deliver and shipment of the goods to World Road amounted to conversion, entitling Forsa to judgment for the value of the goods.
2 Dec 2009
The Court held the cargo receipt constituted an attornment effecting constructive delivery and thereby completed a valid pledge in favour of the Bank over the 40 identified gold bars; although the cargo receipt would otherwise be an assurance of chattels (and thus a bill of sale), it fell within the statutory exception as a document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of possession or control of goods and therefore did not require registration; accordingly the pledge was valid and the Bank was entitled to apply the proceeds of sale to discharge the indebtedness. The Pledge and Tr…
27 Oct 2004
The court held that the Cargo Receipts and Trust Receipts did not establish a valid pledge because they were not documents of title conferring possession nor was attornment proved; at best they created an equitable charge which required registration under Cap.32 s.80 and was not registered, rendering the security void against the liquidators, so the debits were dispositions void under s.182 and must be repaid.
2 Nov 1987
The go-down warrant's clause requiring endorsement by the party "entitled" created a condition precedent to perfecting any immediate right to possession by the plaintiffs; no such endorsement was obtained, so plaintiffs never had an immediate possessory title and therefore could not maintain an action in conversion; judgment entered for the defendants.