Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Seizure of goods

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2024

DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION v. HOI YUEN GINSENG CO

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1313
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1075/2024

A prima facie case for forfeiture was established because the seized Panax quinquefolius was imported without the required CITES documentation; the defendant did not contest forfeiture nor adduce evidence to justify return, therefore the court properly exercised its discretion under s 42(2)(b) to order forfeiture; costs were refused as a fair exercise of discretion given the defendant's non‑contest.
23 Mar 2011

KELLAND CO LTD v. PACIFIC ACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

KELLAND CO LTD v. PACIFIC ACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT4160/2010

The court held that the Bailiff lawfully seized goods that were in the apparent possession of the Defendant and that the Plaintiff had a statutory right under section 99 to sell distrained goods; ownership alone did not require return of goods and no factors were shown sufficient to displace the landlord's statutory rights, therefore all claimants' claims for return were dismissed.
8 May 2009

JET FORCE INVESTMENT LTD v. OCEAN FIRST (ASIA) LTD

Citation

JET FORCE INVESTMENT LTD v. OCEAN FIRST (ASIA) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT1769/2009

Ownership of the seized amusement machines, standing alone and unsupported by other attendant circumstances, does not defeat the Plaintiff's right to distrain; therefore items nos.1-16 were lawfully distrained and must be awarded to the Plaintiff while item no.17 is awarded to the Claimant; costs follow the event with specified orders.
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.
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.
20 Aug 1999

The Commissioner of Customs and Excise v. Golden Science Technology Ltd. and Others

Citation

The Commissioner of Customs and Excise v. Golden Science Technology Ltd. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/1999

The Court upheld the lower judge's grant allowing respondents to use the seized manufacturing equipment pending the resolution of criminal proceedings, subject to additional safeguards (advance written/faxed notice of production and authorisations and provision of samples) because the statutory scheme and s21L permitted temporary conditional orders and refusal would likely force the 1st respondent into liquidation; however the costs order below was overturned and replaced with costs in the cause (i.e. costs of the forfeiture proceedings following criminal proceedings).
16 Nov 1990

THE QUEEN v. AU KWOK KWAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. AU KWOK KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1099/1990

The Magistrate overstated the suspicion arising from the enumerated factors and the total forfeiture was disproportionate in the circumstances; on appeal the Court varied the order to return 70% of the seized goods and to forfeit 30% as an appropriate and proportionate penalty.
19 Jan 1988

LOUIS PAO v. CHAN SHUET CHU

Citation

LOUIS PAO v. CHAN SHUET CHU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV68/1987

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings and discretion: section 88(b) applies to distress for rent and cannot be extended to writs of fieri facias; Rule 7(1) Order 47 governs fieri facias and contains no tool-exception; the judge did not err in refusing further evidence at review nor in his assessment of which items were proven on the premises; appeal dismissed.