BUTCON LTD. v. PRECIEUX GARMENT FACTORY LTD.

DCCJ15550/2000

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15550 OF 2000

-----------------------

----------------------

___________

Judgment

___________

The Plaintiff had obtained judgment against the Defendant for the transfer to the Plaintiff 334 dozens of category 340 permanent quota or an amount equivalent to its value.

2. The Defendant had on or about 20 April 2001 transferred 334 dozens of category permanent quota to the Plaintiff.

3. The only issue before me is to assess damages suffered by the Plaintiff for the loss of use of those quotas in 1999 and 2000.

4. The Defence is two fold i.e.

(1) There is no evidence that the Plaintiff could utilise those quotas or that the Plaintiff could sell those quotas during those 2 years as business for that category in 1999 and 2000 were bad. Further transfer of quotas was subject to approval of the Trade Department.

(2) In the alternative quantum should be lower than the figures submitted by the Plaintiff.

5. It is true that according to Ng Yuk Lun, a merchandiser in garment manufacturing industry called by the Plaintiff, in theory the Trade Department may not approve the transfer of quotas but according to his experience in the trade he had not heard of any case in which the transfer of quota was not approved by the Trade Department.

6. Ng Yuk Lun also agreed that business in respect garment trade was bad for the past years but it is not the quantity of those merchandise which was affected, it was only the price.

7. The trading of quota was governed by market force. The traders have to adjust their price according to the prevailing economic conditions. They will have to adjust their price which in turn would affect the price of quotas. He said there was no difficulty to fulfill the quotas. It was only the price which is affected.

8. I accept his evidence since he is an independent witness. He has been in the trade from 1994 to 2001. It is unlikely that the Plaintiff could not have utilised a traded the 344 dozens of quota in 1999 and 2000.

9. That leads me to assess the value of those quotas in 1999 and 2000.

10. The Plaintiff had supplied the figures provided by Patrick Trading International. Ng had perused those figures and he agreed that those figures appear to reflect the open market price of category 340 temporary quota for 1999 and 2000.

11. The transaction prices for category 340 quota from January to December 1999 were:-

HK$68, $49, $96.25, $120.75, $114, $100.66, $83, $74, $84.33, $72, $34, $76.

12. The transaction prices for category 340 quota from January 2000 to November 2000 were:-

HK$70, $86, $99.25, $107.66, $105, $71.50, $61, $53.25, $29.50, $11, and $15.

13. The average price for 1999 would therefore be $917.99 ÷ 12 = $81.

14. As there is no figure for transaction price for December 2000, the average price for the year 2000 would be $709.16 ÷ 12 = $59.09.

15. The total loss for the Plaintiff is therefore $(81 + 59) x 334 = $46,760.00.

16. In the premise I gave judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $46,760.00 with interests from date of writ to judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

17. Costs to the Plaintiff.