THE KWANGTUNG PROVINCIAL BANK v. HONG KONG UNION TRANSPORTATION & GODOWN CO LTD

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. In this action, the Defendant company does not appear and it has been left to Mr. Tang for the Plaintiff to prove his case which he has done to my satisfaction. The facts are shortly stated; the Plaintiff is a bank; it became the holder of two godown warrants in relation to high tensile deformed bars; the godown was the Defendant. The bars had been purchased from China by a company or a firm known as Wing Fat Hong. But by virtue of various transactions, the details of which do not concern me, between Wing Fat Hong and the bank they passed to the bank who consequently had the right to direct the godown to deliver those high tensile deformed bars to its order.

2. I mentioned that there were two warrants. The first, No. 703 related in total to 1,297 bundles of high tensile deformed bars. On the 29th May, 1982, the bank wrote to the godown, requiring delivery of that portion of the goods then available to be delivered. Some 93 bundles were delivered. Subsequently, on the 10th June, the bank wrote again requiring delivery of the balance. What never was delivered. In relation to godown warrant 717 which relates to some 101 bundles, the bank made a similar request. Perhaps I should use the word 'demand' because it was their entitlement. The claim is simply for the undelivered bundles of high tensile deformed bars or their value. By its defence, the Defendant has admitted that the goods were hold to the bank's order, but pleads that the bank's claim to have then delivered to its order was compromised by some agreement reached between its legal advisors and that of the bank, and it says further that the claim is estopped by virtue of an injunction which the bank obtained relating to other goods then in the possession of the Defendant. Mr. Tang has submitted, I think correctly, that those matters being raised by defence, were for the Defendant to establish, and as the Defendant does not appear to this action, that of course, has not been done and it is left Mr. Tang on the state of the pleadings with very little to prove. What he had to establish was that the demands were made and the value of the goods. He has done the latter by reference to invoices, showing the price at which these goods were bought by Wing Fat Hong. He says that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that evidence is sufficient for this court to be able to place a value upon the goods which had not been delivered. I agree and I am satisfied, as I said at the beginning, that the claim has been proved.

3. Therefore, there will be judgment to the Plaintiff in the sums claimed in the Statement of Claim with interest at a rate on which I shall hear Mr. Tang's submission from the 10th June 1982 until to-day and thereafter at what I should also be informed is the current rate for interest after judgment.