Ge Capital (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Yunda Express Ltd and Another
|
DCCJ771/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 771 OF 2010 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ Before: Deputy District Judge Roy Yu in Chambers (Open to the public) Date of Hearing: 1 June 2010 Date of Brief Reason for Adjournment: 1 June 2010 ________________________ Brief Reason for Adjournment ________________________ 1.I have some concern with this application. 2.The plaintiff asks for two declaratory relief:
3.It is the case for the plaintiff that they are the owner of the first and second vehicles: under hire purchase agreements with the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has been in breach of the term, and that the hire purchase agreements were repudiated. 4.In the action DCCJ2153/2009, an order 84A judgment was obtained and damages were assessed on the basis that the vehicles could not be found. I am told that the judgment has not been satisfied. 5.After the judgment, the police found the two vehicles. When the plaintiff claimed the vehicles, the police asked the plaintiff to have a settlement agreement with the defendants herein, or obtain a court order. 6.The plaintiff thus took out this action. The defendant has not filed an Acknowledgment of Service, or defence. 7.Mr Lau, for the plaintiff, is aware that for default cases the court would not, as a normal practices, make a declaration without a trial. I agree that there are exceptions. 8.But the difficulty I have is this, it is the case for the plaintiff that it is, in fact, the owner. This is not a status that require blessing by a declaration. So, it is different from the cases where we have, say, claim under adverse possession, or a declaration of repudiation. It only needs to prove its title by documentary proof. 9.It seems to me on first reaction that the first declaration is redundant. 10.On the second declaration, it appears it is a claim for possession. I fail to see why a declaration should be given. If it is a true possession claim, I believe it should be so pleaded and, possibly, the police has to be made a party as the vehicle is now in their possession. 11.I appreciate the difficulty for Mr Lau, and he asks for an adjournment. And so I agree. 12.But I urge Mr. Lau to review the whole position. People should not be directed by a letter from the police as to what they should do. [Discussion - on terms of Orders] I order that the Summons be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore and costs be reserved.
Mr Raymond Lau, instructed by Messrs Bough & Co., for the Plaintiff 1st Defendant, in person 2nd Defendant, in person | ||||||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 771/2010