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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st claimant informed the applicant the Watch was stolen in Singapore whereby a report was made to relevant authorities by the 1^st 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 2^nd claimant, who claimed to be the new owner.

6. The applicant wrote to both the 1^st and 2^nd claimants requesting them to take further action.  The applicant informed the 1^st 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 2^nd claimant.  In a letter dated the same date, the applicant requested the 2^nd claimant for particulars of the vendor of the Watch.

7. On an unknown date, the 2^nd 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 1^st 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 2^nd claimant personally on 10 September 2014 in the applicant’s office.  The 2^nd claimant does not file an acknowledge of service and does not appear in the hearing on 27October 2014.  I am satisfied the 2^nd claimant was aware of this hearing date.

10. Ms Siron, the applicant’s solicitors submitted, the 1^st 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 2^nd 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 1^st 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 2^nd claimant at his registered address in the mainland.

12. The 2^nd claimant did not appear in the adjourned hearing.

13. In default of the 2^nd claimant’s acknowledgement of service, the 1^st 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 1^st claimant did not dispute. I am satisfied this case warrants a determination summarily.

15. Without taking adverse inference against the 2^nd claimant of his default of appearance, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear.  The 1^st 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 2^nd claimant, the applicant exhibited in the Affirmation of Robert Steiner filed on 5^th September 2014, a copy of a purported receipt dated December 2013 to evidence the 2^nd applicant’s  purchase of the Watch in Cambodia. Noticeably, the 2^nd applicant did not purchase the Watch from an authorized dealer.  No further evidence, for instance, a certificate of guarantee, came to support the 2^nd 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 1^st claimant.  I make an order that the applicant do release the Watch to the 1^st claimant.

Costs

18. Both the applicant and the 1^st claimant agreed costs should be determined summarily.

19. Both the applicant and the 1^st claimant submitted they would not seek costs against the other party.

20. As the decision is in favour of the 1^st claimant, costs should follow the event.  The 2^nd claimant should bear the costs of both the applicant and the 1^st claimant.

21. Upon consideration of the statement on costs of both applicant and the 1^st claimant, I order the 2^nd claimant shall pay the costs of both the applicant and the 1^st claimant, be summarily assessed at $30,000 and $15,000 respectively.