Audemars Piguet (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Scott James Duncan and Another
|
DCMP 2395/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2395 OF 2014 --------------------------------
--------------------------------
------------------- JUDGMENT ------------------- The application 1.The applicant seeks interpleader relief pursuant to Order 17 rule (1) of the Rules of the District Court. The subject involved is a “Royal Oak” wrist watch of the brand “Audemars Piguet” with reference number 14790ST.OO.0789ST.09/E51736-508921-6176 (“the Watch”). The background 2.The applicant is the manufacturer of the Watch. According to the records of the applicant, the Watch was sold to the 1st Claimant by Sincere Watch Limited, an independent authorized dealer of the applicant in Singapore on 22December 2011 at a price of 8,686 Singapore dollars. 3.It is indisputable, on 22 December 2006, 9 June 2008 and 25 July 2011, the 1st claimant brought the Watch to the applicant’s Singapore affiliate Audemars Piguet (Singapore) Ptd Limited for repair and maintenance. 4.In or about 27 July 2012, the 1st claimant informed the applicant the Watch was stolen in Singapore whereby a report was made to relevant authorities by the 1st claimant. The applicant listed the Watch in its “stolen watch file” since then. 5.In or about March 2014, the Watch reappeared and was dropped off at the applicant’s premise in Hong Kong for service by the 2nd claimant, who claimed to be the new owner. 6.The applicant wrote to both the 1st and 2nd claimants requesting them to take further action. The applicant informed the 1st claimant in its letter dated 21 March 2014 that unless an “injunction from the appropriate authority” is served on them within 30 days, the Watch will be returned to the 2nd claimant. In a letter dated the same date, the applicant requested the 2nd claimant for particulars of the vendor of the Watch. 7.On an unknown date, the 2nd claimant sent an invoice issued from one “Lim Watches and Jewellery Shop” to support his purchase of the Watch on 23 December 2013 in Cambodia in an unknown currency 5,500. The applicant says Lim Watches and Jewellery Shop is not one of their authorized dealers. 8.The applicant suggested to the 1st claimant to report the matter to the Hong Kong Police Force. Investigation has been undergoing since late August 2014 but there has been little progress. The proceedings 9.The applicant served the originating summons on the 2nd claimant personally on 10 September 2014 in the applicant’s office. The 2nd claimant does not file an acknowledge of service and does not appear in the hearing on 27October 2014. I am satisfied the 2nd claimant was aware of this hearing date. 10.Ms Siron, the applicant’s solicitors submitted, the 1st claimant was not an ordinary resident in Hong Kong, he did not maintain a local address. The letter dated 21 March 2014 was sent to the 2nd applicant’s address in the mainland. He reverted and travelled to Hong Kong to accept service of the originating summons. 11.The matter was adjourned to 13 November 2014 for the applicant to amend the originating summons; and for both the applicants and the 1st claimant to file and serve their statement on costs. I also direct the abovementioned and an order of the directions to be served on the 2nd claimant at his registered address in the mainland. 12.The 2nd claimant did not appear in the adjourned hearing. 13.In default of the 2nd claimant’s acknowledgement of service, the 1st claimant invited the court to determine the interpleader proceedings summarily. Discussion 14.Order 17(5)(2)(c) states that where the question at issue between the claimants is a question of law and fact are not in dispute, the court may summarily determine the question at issue between the claimants and make order accordingly on such terms as may be just. In this interpleader proceedings, the applicant has set out the facts in its affirmation which the 1st claimant did not dispute. I am satisfied this case warrants a determination summarily. 15.Without taking adverse inference against the 2nd claimant of his default of appearance, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear. The 1st claimant purchased the Watch from an authorized dealer in Singapore. The purchase was well recorded. As the owner of the Watch, he had taken it back for repair / maintenance on various dates from 2006 – 2011. A valid report was made to the authorities that the Watch was stolen in 2012. 16.For the 2nd claimant, the applicant exhibited in the Affirmation of Robert Steiner filed on 5th September 2014, a copy of a purported receipt dated December 2013 to evidence the 2nd applicant’s purchase of the Watch in Cambodia. Noticeably, the 2nd applicant did not purchase the Watch from an authorized dealer. No further evidence, for instance, a certificate of guarantee, came to support the 2nd claimant as the true owner of the Watch. 17.I am driven to the conclusion that the true owner of the Watch must be the 1st claimant. I make an order that the applicant do release the Watch to the 1st claimant. Costs 18.Both the applicant and the 1st claimant agreed costs should be determined summarily. 19.Both the applicant and the 1st claimant submitted they would not seek costs against the other party. 20.As the decision is in favour of the 1st claimant, costs should follow the event. The 2nd claimant should bear the costs of both the applicant and the 1st claimant. 21.Upon consideration of the statement on costs of both applicant and the 1st claimant, I order the 2nd claimant shall pay the costs of both the applicant and the 1st claimant, be summarily assessed at $30,000 and $15,000 respectively.
Ms D Siron, of Boughton Peterson Yang Anderson, for the applicant on 27 October 2014 Ms Chan Po Man, of Boughton Peterson Yang Anderson, for the applicant on 13 November 2014 Mr B Chan, of Hart Giles, for the 1st claimant 2nd claimant was not represented and did not appear | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||