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

________________________

________________________

Brief Reason for Adjournment

________________________

1.  I have some concern with this application.

2.  The plaintiff asks for two declaratory relief:

(1)	The plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the first and second vehicle;
(2)	The plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the first and second vehicle.

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.