IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG
HOLDEN AT VICTORIA
DISTRAINT NO. 571 OF 1972
Between Sze Chak Tong and Cheung Yuet Foon Plaintiff and Chan Chue Lou trading as Hong Yuen Metalic Spring Manufacturing Co. Defendant
Sze Chak Tong and Cheung Yuet Foon
Chan Chue Lou trading as Hong Yuen Metalic Spring Manufacturing Co.
Coram: Judge Davies in chambers
1. Since the 7th July, 1972 (when I directed that a Power of Attorney was required), a further difficulty has arisen, which concerns all Distressfor Rent matters relating to the New Territories.
2. Section 40 of the Distress for Rent Ordinance applies the Ordinance to New Kowloon and to any other land exempted from Part II ofthe New Territories Ordinance.
3. Section 7(2) of the New Territories Ordinance makes provision for such exemption, but it is a question of fact in each case whether or not any particular land and/or premisessituate in the New Territories has been exempted.
4. I have personally been in touch with the Crown Solicitor over this matter, and he in turn has consulted the New Territories Administration.I am informed that in general it is the case that property designated “D.D.” (Demarcation District) has not been exempted by the Governor from the provisions of Part II of the New Territories Ordinance, whereas in general, premises designated “I.L.” (inland Lot) have been so exempted.
5. At present, the Crown Solicitor is not in a position to inform me whether or not this general principle is affected by the presenceof, or nature of, buildings erected on the land. It may be some days before this can be verified.
6. Meanwhile, however, it would appear that it is essential for the Plaintiff to state in his affirmation whether the premises concernedare designated “D.D.” or “I.L.”, though even that may not be conclusive. The only conclusive factor would seem to be a positive statement that the premises are exempt from the provisions of Part II of the New Territories Ordinance. Only then would it be certain that the premises are within the scope of the Distress for Rent Ordinance.
7. I much regret being obliged to refer this Application back to the Plaintiffs’ Solicitor, but I hope that the above will make myreasons clear. I would add that if the Plaintiffs’ Solicitors would welcome the opportunity to address me on this aspect of thelaw, I would be only too happy to afford them the opportunity to do so, and a date could be fixed by Deputy Registrar for this purpose,on application.
8. Failing this, the Plaintiffs’ affidavit must be amended to include the matters which I have referred to above.